DLP

Policy and Practice for Developmental

Leaders, Elites and Coalitions
DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Research Paper 11
An analysis of Leadership
Development Programmes
working in the context of
development
Heather Lyne de Ver & Fraser Kennedy
February 2011

www.dlprog.org
 DLP
Policy and Practice for Developmental
Leaders, Elites and Coalitions
DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP)

is an international policy initiative informed by
targeted research and directed by an independent
steering committee. DLP is supported by a global
network of partners and currently receives its core
funding from the Australian aid program.

The views expressed in this publication are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
those of the Australian Government or any of
DLP’s other partner organisations.
 i

Contents Page

Acronyms ii

Abstract iii

Executive Summary iv

Introduction 01

1.0 An Overview of the Programmes Reviewed 03

2.0 An Overview of the Criteria for Selecting Leadership Development Programmes 05

2.1 Does the programme articulate its understanding of leadership? 05
2.2 Does the programme have a theory of change? 11
2.3 Who is the programme aimed at? 13
2.4 What are the programme’s methods and content? 21
2.5 Impact assessment and evaluations 32

3.0 Our Opinion 38

3.1. The Developmental Leadership Program’s View of Leadership 38
3.2. Important Criteria 39

4.0 Conclusions and Policy Messages 43

4.1 Conclusions 43
4.2 Policy Messages 44

References 45

Appendix A
- List of LDPs reviewed 54
Appendix B - Theories of Change 56

Appendix C - Matrix of LDPs 62

 ii

Acronyms
ACBF – Africa Capacity Building Foundation
AED – Academy for Educational Development
AfLI – African Leadership Institute
AL – African Leadership
ALA – African Leadership Academy
ALC – African Leadership Council
ALCD - The African Leadership Capacity Development Project
AILA – Abshire Inamori Leadership Academy
AILC – Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre
ALF – Africa Leadership Forum
ALI – Africa Leadership Initiative
ALPN – African Leadership and Progress Network
APLP – Asia Pacific Leadership Programme (East-West Centre)
AusAID – Australian Agency for International Development
AWID – Association for Women’s Rights in Development
AWLF – Africa Women’s Leadership Forum
CaDeCo – Capacity Development Consultants
CCL – Center for Creative Leadership
CELA – Central Eurasian Leadership Academy
CLPV – Centre for Leadership and Public Values
CLS – Centre for Leadership Studies
CSC – Civil Service College, Singapore
EID – Egyptian Institute of Directors
FaHCSIA – Dept. for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Aus)
GIMPA – Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration
HCI – Human Capital Institute
iLEDA – Initiative for Leadership and Democracy in Africa
ILNV – Indigenous Leadership Network Victoria
ISC – Institute for Sustainable Communities
INTRAC – International NGO Training and Research Centre
IWL – Institute for Women’s Leadership
IWDA – International Women’s Development Agency
IWF – International Women’s Forum
LEAD – LEAD International
LEAP – Leadership, Effectiveness, Accountability and Professionalism
LDP – Leadership Development Program
LLI – Latino Leadership Initiative
LWI – Leadership Wisdom Initiative
NGO -- Non-Governmental Organization
NLI – Nigerian Leadership Initiative (Aspen Institute)
OIYP -- Oxfam International Youth Partnerships
PLP – Population Leadership Program (Washington State University)
RMIT – Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
RRI – Rapid Results Institute
UNDP-LDP – UNDP Leadership Development Program – Leadership For Results
WILD – Women’s Institute for Leadership Development for Human Rights
WKKF – W K Kellogg Foundation
WLC – Women Leading Change Program
WLDP – Women’s Leadership Development Program (University of Virginia)
WLP – Women’s Leadership Program (CCL)
WWB – Women’s World Banking
YWLP – Yemen Women’s Leadership Program
 iii

Abstract

At the same time as interest in ‘leadership’ as a factor in the processes of development

has increased within the international development community, many new Leadership
Development Programmes (LDPs) have emerged. The profusion of such programmes
operating within the developing world, and the ambiguity with which the concept of
‘leadership’ is often treated, has resulted in difficulty in differentiating amongst (often in
reality very different) LDPs.

This paper reviews leadership development programmes as a tool for development policy.
We argue that donor and recipient organisations need to be much more discriminating
when choosing or designing programmes; that most programmes fall short if their aim is
to contribute to development; and that understanding the ‘political’ nature of leadership
is key to choosing or designing a good programme.

The study is based on research which reviewed of a sample of 67 different LDPs

operating in different regions of the world. It provides a brief overview of these LDPs;
suggests criteria and critical questions that should be considered by policy-makers when
selecting, supporting or even designing appropriate LDPs; and addresses some of the
policy implications raised.
 iv

Executive Summary
This paper reviews leadership development programmes1 as a tool for development policy. We argue
that donor and recipient organisations need to be much more critical when choosing or designing
programmes; that most programmes fall short if their aim is to contribute to development; and that
understanding the ‘political’ nature of leadership is key to choosing or designing a good programme.

Methodology and Overview of the Argument

The main body of the paper consists of a review of 67 leadership development programmes (LDPs)
that aim to build or enhance leadership capacity in the developing world. It primarily reviews LDPs with
an online presence.These were identified and reviewed using a variety of means, including: online search
and selection, scans of academic material, information from evaluation units of major development
organisations, questionnaires to all surveyed LDPs providing contact information on their websites, and
some semi-structured interviews. Despite constraints (such as limiting the review to organisations with
some online presence, or those that responded to enquiries), this sample provides a useful basis for
identifying the most important issues and themes for policy makers to take into account with regard to
funding, selecting or creating leadership development programmes.

To review the programmes we asked five questions:

• Does the programme have a clearly articulated understanding of what it means by ‘leadership’?
• Does the programme have a theory of change?
• Who is the programme aimed at?
• What are the programme’s training methods and contents?
• What kind of impact assessments or evaluations does the programme carry out?

The review is followed by a summary of the Developmental Leadership Program’s (DLP) view that
leadership for development is more than leadership for organisational development, and thus requires
different kinds of programme.

The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) argues that leadership is ‘political’ in nature, especially
in developmental contexts. As such, leadership, in addition to individual skills, is a process that involves
the fostering and use of networks and the formation of coalitions as a means of overcoming the many
collective action problems that define the challenges of development.

Programmes based on ‘Western’ organisational leadership training models tend to focus on the indi-
vidual attributes of alleged ‘good’ leaders and presuppose the existence of robust institutions in the
context in which participants work.These programmes tend to overlook the importance of the ‘political’
and ‘shared’ nature of leadership, particularly in contexts where institutions are weak or absent.

Effective ‘leadership for development’ programmes should include giving participants the understanding,
tools and experience to foster networks, form coalitions and work politically in a positive sense.

1 Disclaimer: Information contained in this report is intended for general information purposes only. DLP and the authors make no
representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of
the programmes described. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
 v

Key findings

We have grouped the key findings of the review according to the five questions asked:

Does the programme have a clearly articulated understanding of what it means by ‘leader-
ship’?

• Same words, different meanings: Leadership programmes use the same language and words, such as
‘leadership’, but the terms can mean very different things from one programme to another. In addi-
tion, their aims, target audiences, teaching methods and contents vary greatly. In order to be able to
compare and choose between different programmes, it would be helpful if they were explicit about
their definitions of leadership.
• Most programmes do not define leadership: Only 9 out of the 67 programmes reviewed clearly ar-
ticulate their understanding of leadership.
• Leadership as individual attribute rather than shared process: When analysing the programmes more
closely and looking at their teaching methods and content, it becomes clear that most programmes
implicitly define ‘leadership’ as an individual trait or quality rather than as shared process between
leaders and others.
• Leadership for organisational development, rather than leadership for development: Most LDPs are
based on ‘western’ organisational leadership models, originally developed in the context of company
management to increase efficiency and performance, rather than oriented towards leadership for
institutional formation and for development.
• Growing acknowledgement of leadership as a process. Although very few programmes look at leader-
ship as a ‘political’ process, there is a growing acknowledgement of the importance of working ‘politi-
cally’, forming networks and shaping coalitions in order to achieve positive outcomes.

Does the programme have a theory of change?

A theory of change should show how the programme will lead to changes in the behaviour of partici-
pants and how these changes in turn will contribute to development. The theory of change should
underpin and guide the programme’s methods and contents and enable the programme to evaluate its
effectiveness.

Only 10 out of 67 programmes reviewed have some sort of theory of change. Of those, most do not
adequately explain the processes through which leadership is developed, and how this leadership then
creates change. In general, among the LDPs reviewed, there is a disconnection between a programme’s
development goals and its actual practices. However, the review identified four programmes that did
provide strong, research-based and fully explained theories of change that trace their impact through
the processes of development and change: Oxfam International Youth Partnerships (OIYP), Vital Voices,
Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity, and the United Nations Development Program’s
(UNDP) Leadership for Results.

Who is the programme aimed at?

There is a considerable variety of LDPs and of types of participant aimed at. There is also much variety
and the types of participant aimed at for such programmes. These include: existing leaders, potential
leaders, high-level leaders, grass-roots leaders, women leaders, or leaders connected to a specific sector
or issue (such as agriculture, climate change or civil rights). There is no hard and fast rule about which
 vi

kinds of participant such programmes should be aimed at. The key is to look for the programme that
best matches the needs of the participants identified, or to identify the most promising programme for
the development issue at hand, and then select the right participants.

One interesting finding is that, compared with LDPs in general, those programmes which are aimed at
women’s leadership show greater understanding of leadership as political process, are more often based
around concrete objectives, and work together more frequently as a movement.

What are the programme’s training methods and contents?

Once again, a wide variety of methods, content and practices are used to develop leadership.These vary
from traditional classroom-based teaching to action-learning and from individual competency-based
training to supporting entrepreneurship for development. Most programmes use a combination of
training methods and content.

Overall, there is a strong tendency to base methods and content on ‘Western’ organisational leadership
training models, which often overlook the importance of learning about networks and coalitions and
are universalist rather than specific to the context of the participants. More than half (52%) of the
programmes reviewed are based in Northern Europe or North America.

What kind of impact assessments or evaluations does the programme carry out?

The LDPs that were selected for review all assert the aim of contributing to development. Accordingly,
one might reasonably expect such programmes to evaluate not only participant satisfaction, but also any
wider impact on the participants’ organisation or on society.

The majority of programmes reviewed here, however, only evaluate at the individual level. Most of
those only provide anecdotal evidence of participant satisfaction. As such, they have no way of knowing
whether they contribute in any way to development. However, a few programmes do track change
at the individual and organisational levels (examples are Centre for Creative Leadership, Technoserve
and Avina), or even at the societal level (Chevening Scholarship Programme, Institute for Sustainable
Communities and Ashoka), showing that it is possible and, we argue, important to do more.

Policy messages

When deciding whether to support, fund or design leadership development programmes, donors and
funders need to consider the following policy messages.

• Make sure to articulate your own understanding of ‘leadership’ and its role for development first. What
do you mean by ‘leadership’, why do you want to support it and to what end?

• Be critical and discriminating when supporting or commissioning programmes. Ask:

1. What is the definition of leadership used by the programme?
2. What is the theory of change of the programme?
3. For whom is this programme intended?
4. What methods, contents and practices are likely to be consistent with the theory of change?
5. How effective is the programme and how is this measured?

• Choose programmes that understand that leadership for development is more than leadership for or-
ganisational development. Leadership programmes oriented to development should have an under-
 vii

standing of the ‘political’ nature of leadership and should train in the use of networks, the formation
of coalitions and how to work politically in a positive sense.

• Choose programmes that are appropriate for the context and sector. Considering the importance we
attach to facilitating the use of networks and formation of coalitions, context and sector specific
programmes may be more appropriate than generic ones.

• Make sure you have the right participants. As described in the review, there is an enormous range
of programmes and approaches to choose from. Make sure you select the right participants, or the
right programme for the people you have in mind.

• More can and should be done to evaluate the effectiveness of leadership programmes. A small number
of programmes show it is possible to evaluate beyond the satisfaction at the individual participant
level. Evaluations should be required to be carried out over time, at least at the individual and or-
ganisational level, and, where possible, at the societal level, to assess the appropriateness of LDPs as
a tool for development policy.

Conclusion

With important and encouraging exceptions, many leadership programmes fail to have a clearly articu-
lated understanding of ‘leadership’, and few have a theory of change that could underpin and guide the
methods and content of their courses. A strong tendency to base programmes on ‘western’ organisa-
tional leadership training models and methods is common, as is the failure to emphasise the inescapably
‘political’ nature of leadership in all, but especially in developmental, contexts. By focusing largely on
the alleged individual attributes of ‘good’ leaders, such programmes often overlook the importance of
leadership as a process. This process involves the fostering and use of networks and the formation of
coalitions as a means of overcoming the many collective action problems that define the challenges of
development. There is a need to evaluate leadership programmes beyond participant satisfaction to
verify leadership development as a policy tool for development. A minority of programmes shows that
it is possible to evaluate much more than is currently the case.
 1

Introduction2
The importance of ‘leadership’ as a factor in the processes of development has become more widely
recognised among the academic and donor community. In 2010, for example, the Commission on
Growth and Development published a book entitled Growth and Leadership.3 The preface of this book
makes clear the new level of interest in leadership among policy-makers and academics alike, introducing
the topic by stating: “In this book, former policy-makers and practitioners reflect on the role of leader-
ship in economic growth…they do not doubt that leadership matters” (Brady & Spence, 2010: ix).
Similarly a recent United Nations Development Program (UNDP) policy paper highlights the role that
leadership can play in the processes of development:

Nurturing effective leadership for transformation is vital for moving forward the new millennium
development agenda. New participatory systems may be required, and this takes leadership
committed to change that supports reflection, inclusion, open participation, and diversity of perspec-
tives (UNDP, 2006: 4).

At the same time that an interest in leadership has increased within the international development
community, a new group of Leadership Development Programmes (LDPs) has emerged. These
programmes, learning and borrowing from the original western LDPs, have taken the principle of
enhancing leadership performance as a means to enhance individual and organizational performance
and broadened this to apply to the context of development.

The number of LDPs working within the developing world has increased dramatically over the past
twenty years. LDPs as a means of supporting development are also increasingly becoming a part of
multi-lateral and bi-lateral donor policy. Exact figures here are difficult to find4 but the following major
donors provided funding to some of the programmes reviewed here5:

• United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

• AusAID
• The UK Department for International Development (DfID)
• UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
• British Council
• The Asian Development Bank
• World Bank
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
• UNDP
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• The Swiss Agency for Development

The combination of the large number of LDPs in operation in the developing world6 and the emerging
2 The authors would like to thank Adrian Leftwich and Isabelle van Notten for their valuable comments on this paper.
3 This publication was sponsored by major international development donors including the Australian Agency for International Devel-
opment (AusAID), the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and
the World Bank.
4 Donors do not tend to provide breakdowns of their spending in sufficient detail for it to become obvious what is spent on ‘leader-
ship development’ specifically. Instead these activities may be covered under any number of categories from good governance,
civil society, education, capacity building, or other specific issue-areas such as health, HIV/AIDs, environment, conflict-resolution etc.
Similarly not all LDPs provide detailed information about who funds them.
5 These funders, in number if not in amount (which again it was not possible to find exact evidence of), were, however, dwarfed by
private-sector foundations and philanthropic organizations who provide funding to almost all of the organizations reviewed. These
private-sector donors include: The West Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the W K Kellogg Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, Google.org, the Rockefeller Foundation, Exxon Mobil Foundation, Lenovo, Cargill, Nokia, Honda, Nike, the Coca-Cola
Company, AT&T, Macys, Ricoh, Microsoft, IBM, AOL, Chubb, ConocoPhilips, McKinsey & Company, Hill & Knowlton, Latham & Wat-
kins, Virgin Nigeria, Ernst & Young.
6 Again, exact figures are hard to find, but the numbers in this review represent only a small fraction of the total.
 2

donor interest in leadership as a tool for development policy makes this an issue that is pertinent for
review. Because of the sheer number of different LDPs available, and the very different things that they
do, the question is: how can policy-makers can choose the right programme? This research addresses
this issue in relation to the use of LDPs in international development (and donor) policy.

This study is based on research which reviewed of a sample of 67 different LDPs (listed at appendix A)
operating in different regions of the world, all of which aim in one way or another to build, develop or
enhance leadership capacity in the developing world. Section 1 provides a brief overview of these LDPs,
section 2 goes into more detail to suggest criteria (or critical questions) by means of which donors and
policy-makers can usefully select, create, design or assess LDPs that meet their needs. In Section 3, the
paper sets out the Developmental Leadership Program’s view as to how these criteria may be used
by policy-makers to select, support or even design appropriate leadership development programmes
and offers a useful lens through which to look at leadership development policy. This is followed by an
overview of the policy implications raised by this research (section 4), and finally summary and conclu-
sions follow (section 5).
 3

1.0
An overview of the
programmes reviewed

This research primarily reviews LDPs that have an online presence, as this constituted the original search
method. 67 programmes were found and reviewed through a variety of means:
• Keyword searches such as ‘leadership development’, ‘leadership development programmes’, ‘leader-
ship for socio-economic development’, ‘women’s leadership’, ‘traditional leadership’, ‘leadership train-
ing’, ‘capacity building’, ‘indigenous leadership’, ‘leadership evaluations’, and ‘leadership courses’ were
used to establish initial LDP names.
• The websites identified through these searches were fully explored to narrow down the list to those
concerned with socio-economic development, or developing-country leaders.
• Scans of academic material from a literature review (Lyne de Ver, 2008), leadership journals, leader-
ship thinktanks, and academic departments.
• Searches of evaluation units of major development organizations were also conducted including:
the DfID; USAID; British Council; IMF; World Bank; UNDP; OECD; and the International Labour
Organization (ILO).
• Questionnaires were sent out to all surveyed LDPs that provided contact information on their
websites.
• Where possible these were followed up by telephone, face-to-face, or email semi-structured inter-
views.
• Freedom of Information requests were lodged with the relevant UK government departments in
order to gain information on UK Foreign and Commmonwealth Office (FCO) and British Council
LDPs.

The work has been limited to some extent by a number of factors:

a) The review is limited to those organizations that have some presence on the Internet, or that have
responded to enquiries by email and telephone. As such, this may have led to a bias towards the
larger, better-funded organizations that have access to technology and advertising.
b) It has only been possible to contact and review English language-based programmes, or those that
have translations on their websites.
c) This review concentrates mostly on long-standing LDPs, rather than one-off LDPs which emerge for
a specific purpose. This is mainly due to ease of access to materials, staff, research and resources.

Despite these constraints, this sample provides a useful basis for identifying the most important issues
and themes for policy makers to take into account with regard to funding, selecting or creating leader-
ship development programmes.
 4

Where LDPs did not respond to enquiries, the evidence presented is based on information available
on their websites, through donor websites, and through publicly accessible publications and evaluations.
Leadership development is a vast industry worldwide. We surveyed a total of 67 organizations but a
Google search for the term “leadership development programme” gives more than 349,000 results,
and the number of programmes operating around the world is growing all the time. Nonetheless, this
research illustrates the variety of different programmes available.

There is a large amount of divergence in terms of form, function, aims, and practices, but different
programmes can be broadly classified into the following groups:
• Management training
• Organizational development
• Scholarship programmes7
• Skills training
• Community development
• Entrepreneurial development
• Capacity development
• Coalition/network building
• Mentoring/coaching
• Executive development
• Resource support

There is of course some cross-over between these different groups, and this is not intended to constitute
an accurate taxonomy of LDPs, but to give some idea of the diversity of interpretations of ‘leadership
development’.

By far the largest group of LDPs in operation at the moment are (largely western) management training
programmes or executive development programmes designed mainly for use by business.

This research concerns LDPs that are working in the context of development and concerned with
leadership development as it relates to national development (inclusive economic growth and social
development). This group of LDPs has largely developed out of the tradition of these executive leader-
ship development programmes. Programmes that are oriented to leadership for development have,
however, also brought much original (and indigenous) thought to the field of leadership development,
resulting in a group that is varied both in terms of aims and approach.

Of the organizations surveyed approximately a third work internationally across different regions
and countries; while the remaining two thirds are regionally or nationally based. We look mostly at
long-standing programmes as it is more difficult to find accurate information on the many one-off
programmes that are commissioned for a particular context at a particular time.

Euro-American derived programmes dominate the group.The majority (52%) of these organizations are
based, or were formed, in Northern Europe or North America.

There is a high degree of focus on the individual. Over a third of the programmes surveyed concentrate
on developing the personal skills of individual leaders, study “heroic leadership figures” (O’Connor &
Day, 2007: 70), and place an emphasis on leadership styles or traits.

7 These are programmes that provide leadership training as well as scholarships for further or higher education.
 5

2.0
An overview of the
criteria for selecting
Leadership Development
Programmes

Leadership development, as highlighted above, is becoming an important part of donor development

policy. Some donor organizations devise, design or run programmes themselves, many others tender
this work out to existing leadership development programmes or educational organizations8. The
profusion of LDPs operating within the developing world, and the ambiguity with which the concept of
‘leadership’ itself is often treated, has resulted in difficulty in differentiating among (often in reality very
different) LDPs. This section sets out criteria by which policy-makers and the international development
community can differentiate between, and assess, as well as create or design programmes that are
appropriate to their needs.

The criteria take the form of a set of questions that policy-makers should ask of LDPs (and of them-
selves) when designing, selecting or assessing programmes for use in development policy; the relevant
and appropriate answers will depend upon the aims and requirements of the particular policy-maker.
These questions are:

• Does the programme have a clearly articulated understanding and rationale of what it means by
‘leadership’?
• Does the programme have a theory of change?
• Who is the programme aimed at?
• What are the programme’s teaching and training methods and content?
• What kind of impact assessments or evaluations does the programme carry out?

2.1 Does the programme clearly articulate its understanding of

leadership?
The first thing to look for when selecting a LDP is whether it has (and whether it is explicit about) a
clear understanding of ‘leadership’. The reasons why a clear articulation of the particular meaning or
definition of leadership is so important are, first, that leadership is a highly ambiguous term; and second,
that the particular choice of the definition of leadership strongly influences the content and method of
the programmes. The field of leadership studies has devoted much research to exploring the meaning
of leadership and the result is a large number of definitions which differ widely (Lyne de Ver: 2008). It
is considered to be one of the most widely contested concepts and, as such, the expert on leadership,

8 For example, the leadership development portion of the Chevening scholarships and fellowships are not designed and run by the
UK FCO, instead the FCO commissions existing educational and leadership institutions to do this on its behalf.
 6

Bernard Bass, states that “[t]here are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept” (1990: 11).

Most of these understandings of leadership are valid in some contexts, but few (if any) are universally
applicable. It seems important, therefore, that LDPs explicitly and clearly formulate and articulate their
theoretical standpoint with regard to both the nature of leadership, and the way in which the programme
will ‘develop’ or change the participants and their communities – both what leadership is and what LDPs
should do and create.

Different understandings of leadership have implications for the way LDPs operate, and these differ-
ences will certainly have a great impact on a LDP’s training processes, goals, and outcomes and impact.
However, of the 67 LDPs reviewed for this research, only 99 provide a clear and explicit explanation
of their conception of leadership within their course materials or publicly accessible websites. These
were: LEAD, the Abshire Inamori Leadership Academy (AILA), the Africa Leadership Initiative (ALI),
the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), the
Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy, Ashoka (which provides a definition of ‘Changemakers’™), LEAP
Africa, and AVINA. Examples of these definitions include:

• Mandela Rhodes Foundation: “By Leadership, we mean the will and capacity to use one’s own per-
sonality and abilities to guide, inspire, and develop fellow human beings to achieve excellence in any
area of endeavour”10
• Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID): For AWID, leadership is a collective
process involving voice, impact and influence.11
• The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy: Leadership is “rooted in the principle of ubuntu/botho
which encompasses the ideas of humanity, compassion and service to others”12
• LEAP Africa, leadership is being a “change agent”13
• Instead of a definition of leadership, AVINA offers a booklet of leadership testimonials from a num-
ber of its practitioners including the following conception of leadership:
“I believe that lasting social change and sustainable development come not from individual
leadership but from collective action, a mobilization of the community. But sometimes the
community needs help defining a vision, a strategy as an organizational framework for social
change. I believe the role of a leader for change is to help spark the imagination and vision of
the communities where s/he works, and then to help those communities develop practical
models for making that vision a reality” (Rice, 2005: 37).

What does it say?

Having established whether a LDP provides a clear explanation of its theory of leadership, it is important
to assess whether this theory of leadership is appropriate for the particular requirements of a donor
organization.

If the theory of leadership has been clearly and explicitly stated then this may be a straightforward
9 Please note that a small number of the programmes reviewed do not explicitly talk of themselves as ‘Leadership Development
Programmes’. In these cases one should look for a clear explanation and definition of what an organization believes it is doing. For
example, Ashoka describes itself as an “association of social entrepreneurs” and its definitions of social entrepreneurship and of
“Changemakers™” provide a good theoretical underpinning.
10 http://www.mandelarhodes.org/guidingprinciples
11 http://www.awid.org/Issues-and-Analysis/Articles/wid-to-gad/%28language%29/eng-GB
12 http://oprahwinfreyleadershipacademy.o-philanthropy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=owla_homepage
13 http://www.leapafrica.org/MessagefromtheFounder.php
 7

process but, given the lack of theoretical clarity among the sample highlighted above, it is often necessary
to infer this not through stated definitions but through an analysis of LDPs’ approach and methods.

For example, many LDPs convey a sense of what they mean by leadership without directly providing a
clear definition or explanation. Some LDPs imply that leadership consists of a set of skills or ‘qualities’.
For example, the AILC, which focuses on courses in ‘leadership skills’, does this. Many organizational
leadership development programmes - where they do not directly define leadership itself - tend to
equate leadership with ‘management’ or ‘governance’.

Others provide us with clues as to what they think leadership ought to look like, or which model of
leadership they feel is most appropriate. For example, the Centre for Leadership and Public Values talks
about strengthening the “development of the Fellow on the path to more responsible transformative
leadership”14; the Civil Service College, Singapore (CSC Singapore) states that one of the keys to good
governance is “visionary leadership”15.

What follows is a discussion of some of the main divergences in LDPs’ theoretical approach to leader-
ship; looking at how – whether explicitly stated or not – these may be reflected in the practices and aims
of different LDPs, and what this means for policy makers. The areas identified are the divergences that
may cause significant differences in the aims, practices and outcomes of LDPs. These are:
i. Leadership as an individual attribute or as a shared and ‘political’ process
ii. Normative or positive (non-prescriptive) conceptions of leadership
iii. Teaching leadership or facilitating leadership
iv. Transformational leadership or transactional leadership.

i. Leadership as an individual property or leadership as a group process

One of the main points of theoretical divergence between different LDPs is the question of whether
leadership is seen as something that is possessed by an individual, or as a shared property or group
process – and hence a political one.

Bolden highlights these implications when discussing the difference between ‘leader development’ and
‘leadership development’:

“‘Leader development’ is an investment in human capital to enhance intrapersonal competence of

selected individuals, whereas ‘leadership development’ is an investment in social capital to develop
interpersonal networks and cooperation within organizations and other social systems.” (Bolden,
2005: 12).

For those that take the view that leadership is an individual attribute, an appropriate LDP would be
one that is engaged in ‘leader development’. This typically involves training leaders by enhancing the
knowledge and skills, confidence and personal development of individual ‘leaders’.

Those that view leadership as a group process, or a shared capacity, would find more appropriate a LDP
that is engaged in what Bolden calls ‘leadership development’.

14 http://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/gsbwebb/default.asp?intpagenr=416 (emphasis added).

15 http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/page.asp?id=410 (emphasis added). This kind of normative description of leadership will be discussed
further in section 6.2.1.
 8

There is some confusion about this issue, however: first, LDPs often do not clearly explain which side
of this particular fence they lie on. Second, many LDPs that are sold as what Bolden calls ‘leadership
development’ are, on closer inspection, actually involved in training individual leaders – ‘leader develop-
ment’. These programmes often have broad aims that promise much in the way of far-reaching impact,
while their methods are more limited and focus on enhancing ‘leadership skills’.

Where each programme is situated in this debate also has consequences for the design of a LDP. If
leadership is an individual attribute then it is perfectly sensible to bring together an international group
of ‘leaders’ who can learn from one another and develop into better or more effective leaders when
they return to their own environments. If leadership is a group process, however, it would make more
sense to bring together a group of people from the same context who will continue to connect, interact,
relate to, and work with one another in their real lives, in order to create ‘leadership’ within that group
and in their context.

It is important to note that although there are great differences between these views of leadership,
some LDPs do combine components of both ‘leader development’ and ‘leadership development’. For
example, Oxfam International Youth Partnerships (OIYP) stress the importance of personal develop-
ment for its ‘Youth Partners’ but also work to develop community leadership in each context and to
develop ‘mutual understanding’ and shared values across networks (Oxfam International, n.d.c.).

ii. Normative or non-prescriptive conceptions of leadership

Another significant theoretical divergence between LDPs is between those which have with a normative
conception of leadership and those which adopt a non-prescriptive (positive) approach. In the past
‘leadership’ and ‘management’ were often seen as virtually indistinguishable, and leadership was thus
largely seen in non-normative terms, as a skill which could be used in any context and for any set of
goals. Recently, however, there has been a move towards considering leadership to be a transformational
process separate from the predominantly transactional process of management. As a result of this, value-
based conceptions of leadership have become increasingly prevalent; ‘leadership integrity’ and ‘ethical
leadership’ have increasingly become the subject of studies in the field (Waddock, 2007; Badaracco &
Ellsworth, 1993; Yukl, 2008; Brown & Trevino, 2006).

According to Hernez-Broome & Hughes this is part of a strong trend of growing interest in the impor-
tance of a “leader’s emotional resonance with and impact on others” (2004:26). Many LDPs tend,
therefore, to have a normative conception of leadership, and there are a number of LDPs that aim to
teach or encourage what they take to be ‘good’, ‘ethical’, or ‘moral’ leadership, based on a set of values.

This kind of practice may be particularly appropriate to those interested in the importance of leadership
in the context of corruption, or in contexts where there is a prevailing system of values or ethics (which
they may wish to either match or to counter). LDPs that are concerned with values, ethics and integrity
in the context of corruption include:
• LEAP Africa, which has “Integrity Institutes” in five cities in Nigeria, and cites its conviction that
“integrity is a critical attribute of an effective leader”16. LEAP Africa’s Integrity Institute programmes
consist of context-specific (Nigerian) experiential learning and discussions on issues of corruption
and responsibility.
• The African Leadership Academy, which aims to help children to become ‘ethical leaders’, sets out
six core values which students are expected to uphold throughout their education. These are: Integ-
rity, curiosity, humility, compassion, diversity and excellence.
16 http://www.leapafrica.org/IntegrityInstitute.php
 9

• The Centre for Leadership and Public Values’ (CLPV) Emerging Leadership Program has “Ethics
and Accountability” as one of its five core themes, and has created the “Ethics in public life” initiatives
17
which aim to contribute to scholarship and debate about public values.

For those with a specific view of leadership values or a specific developmental ideology there are a
number of programmes that require a commitment to a given set of normative qualities. For example,
the Africa Leadership Capacity Development Project of the ALPN states that among the requisite
qualities of a ‘good leader’ is a commitment to private-sector-driven development18. The Mandela
Rhodes Scholarship Program seeks candidates who identify with and demonstrate the values of the
programme, namely leadership, reconciliation, education, and entrepreneurship19. Others see spiritual
beliefs and values as the key to committed community and society leadership. For example, the Leader-
ship Wisdom Initiative, which emphasises the importance of ‘leadership of the self ’ as well as outward
leadership, and sees compassion and mindfulness as the basis for leadership that solves societal divisions;20
and Africa Leadership which espouses a godly leadership “for the purpose of God-breathed social and
spiritual transformation”21.

A LDP with a non-prescriptive conception of leadership may be more appropriate for those who are
concerned with leadership in a society that has many different value-systems, or who believe that values,
ethics, morality and ideas of ‘good leadership’ are not universal.This does not necessarily mean that such
programmes ignore morality, values and ethics altogether. Instead these kinds of programmes might
encourage discussion of these concepts but tend to emphasise the need for a better understanding
and representation of one’s own values in the practice of leadership without attempting to teach or set
out a particular normative vision of leadership. For example, the Abshire Inamori Leadership Initiative
(AILI) states that it has “no particular code of ethics, but emphasise the need for leaders to develop their
own” (Entman, 2009). It concentrates instead on the skills, competencies, knowledge and understanding
necessary for leadership, and encourage reflection on personal values for each individual participant.

iii. Teaching leadership or facilitating leadership

The classic debate about leadership revolves around the question: “are leaders born or are they made?”
(Avolio, 2005). Most LDPs, engaged as they are in ‘developing leadership’, must to some extent believe
that leaders are made, but there is still a distinction to be made between LDPs which believe that
leadership is something that can be taught (in the strictest sense) and LDPs which see their role as one
which is more concerned with facilitating.

If a LDP conceives of leadership largely as a set of skills, knowledge and capacities possessed by indi-
viduals or groups of people, learned through education and practice, such as public speaking ability,
management techniques, and the ability to process complex ideas, then these are all skills that can
be taught. Such a programme will, therefore, likely have a large class-room component involving skills
training, knowledge development, and capacity building. Examples of these kinds of programmes include:
CaDeCo, the Abshire Inamori Leadership Academy, the Egyptian Institute of Directors, and the
Nigerian Leadership Initiative.

If, on the other hand, a LDP conceives of leadership as being derived from experience; as being a process
rather than a skill; or as something that cannot be directly taught but can be ‘brought-out’ in potential

17 http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/clpv/
18 http://africanprogress.net/leadership_capacity.htm
19 http://www.mandelarhodes.org/characteristics
20 http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/lwi/programmes_lwi.html
21 http://www.africanleadership.org/about-us/why-africa
 10

leaders, then the process of leadership-learning is less straightforward. These kinds of programmes tend
to consist of a variety of practices that aim to facilitate leadership on a number of levels. For example,
experiential learning techniques, group practices, practical experience and other non-traditional methods.
For example, the Institute for Sustainable Communities Climate Leadership Academy approaches lead-
ership as something that can be facilitated or encouraged, but that is inherently a process and not a skill:

“The Academy helps local climate and energy practitioners do their jobs better by connecting them
to their peers in other cities and to leading national experts, providing easier access to the best
available information and approaches, and facilitating dialogue and collaboration with their regional,
state and federal counterparts”. 22

For those who take this second view of leadership – as something that cannot be taught but can
perhaps be facilitated, fostered or encouraged – the timeframes of LDPs are also important. It may, for
instance, take a longer time (or more sustained interaction) to impact on experience in a lasting way than
it does to teach better communications skills.

iv. Transformational or transactional leadership

The final theoretical divergence surrounds the concepts of transformational leadership and transac-
tional leadership. According to the theory, leadership can either be transformational or transactional.
Transformational leadership is the process of transforming individual followers’ desires and needs into
an appreciation of the wider needs/goals of a group. The leader translates these base desires into higher
values and group-goals and serves as a role model who inspires followers to bring about radical change.
To use a simple example, if a follower is hungry a transformational leader may say “you are hungry
because there is a drought and we do not have good enough irrigation systems, if you vote for me I will
improve the irrigation systems and you (and others) will not be hungry”. On the other hand, a transac-
tional leader engages in bargaining and negotiating, promising results or tangible goods in exchange for
followership or cooperation. For example, in the same scenario a transactional leader may say “you are
hungry, if you vote for me I will give you food”.

These concepts of leadership are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the divergence here is not
between those who believe leadership is transformational and those that believe leadership is transac-
tional. Instead, it is about how the two concepts are interpreted. The first view suggests that transfor-
mational leadership is ‘good’ leadership, and that transactional leadership is ‘bad’ leadership. The second
view suggests that the two styles of leadership may be equally appropriate at different times and in
different contexts.

In the first view, transformational leadership tends to be portrayed as heroic, or visionary, while transac-
tional leadership is seen more as ‘managerial’, or even clientelistic.Those LDPs or policy-makers that take
this view are much more likely to advocate transformational leadership behaviour to rather than trans-
actional leadership, and their practices will likely be based around transformational leadership theory.
This first conception dominates the field of leadership development theory at present.

In the second view, the question of whether particular leadership behaviours are (or should be) trans-
formational or transactional will depend upon the circumstances and context. From this perspective
transformational leadership that brings about radical change is appropriate only at critical junctures
where there is sufficient space for such transformation to take place. Within the context of develop-
ment, however, Grebe and Woermann (forthcoming) suggest that “these junctures are few and far
between”. The greater portion of what happens within a developing country context, therefore, actually
22 http://www.iscvt.org/what_we_do/climate/article/cla.php
 11

involves transactional leadership. For example, political settlements, often a critical part of the process
of political and socially inclusive development, involve the transactional processes of negotiation and
bargaining (Laws, 2010; Cole & Parks, 2010). LDPs or policy-makers that take this second view would
suggest that leadership development be more cognisant of the value of transactional leadership in this
context and discuss transformational leadership as one possible model (albeit an important one) of
leadership rather than it being the preferred model.

There are very few LDPs that seem to acknowledge the relevance of transactional leadership theory.
Some LDPs involved in conflict resolution, however, appear to put into practice some of the principles.
For example, the Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity (Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars) uses a concept called “interest-based negotiation” (Wolpe & McDonald, 2008),
which draws much from transactional leadership theory.

v. Overview

The four divergences in LDPs’ theoretical approach to leadership outlined above point to a need for
conceptions of leadership to be clear and well-articulated as well as easily viewed and scrutinised for
suitability to purpose and context, by both participants and financial supporters. Without an explicit
definition of leadership, choosing the right programme is difficult and assessing the impact and effective-
ness of that programme is impossible.

The questions to ask when thinking about leadership theory in relation to leadership development, then,
are:
• Does a LDP articulate a clear theory of leadership?
• What is that theory of leadership?
• Does the programme view leadership as an individual attribute or as a shared process?
• Does the programme have a normative or a positive conception of leadership?
• Does the programme believe that leadership is taught or facilitated?
• Does the programme promote transformational (or visionary) leadership, or encourage a balance
between transformational and transactional leadership depending on context?

If a donor organization can, itself, formulate clear answers to these questions, and is then able to apply
them to the selection or assessment of LDPs, this should allow much greater differentiation between
different kinds of programmes and provide a much clearer idea of which LDPs have a conception of
leadership that is appropriate to its needs. Similarly, if these questions are considered throughout the
process of designing leadership development initiatives they will provide a solid framework by which to
create an effective programme.

2.2 Does the programme have a theory of change?

The second criterion by which to assess leadership programmes is whether a programme has a clear
and substantiated methodology or theory of change. In a report23 commissioned by a number of LDPs
to look into the best way to support women leaders in leadership development (Escandon & Kamungi,
2008), the authors stressed the importance of a methodological, needs-based, planned approach to
leadership development, stating “...the vision of providing leadership and conflict management develop-
ment programs needs a strong foundation built on solid research” (Escandon & Kamungi, 2008: 2). For

23 Commissioned by the Leadership Wisdom Initiative (LWI), the Nairobi Peace Initiative, Femme Afrique Solidarité, the Academy for
Educational Development, and Bridges in Organizations.
 12

a programme that aims to transform the behaviours, outlook or impact of its participants, a research-
based methodology or theory of change explains how these changes in behaviour and thinking occur
and, critically, how their particular methods and practices will produce this change. These methods and
practices should be based on a clear theory of how leadership is (or can be) learned and developed.

Recognition of the importance of research- and theory-based programmes among the LDPs reviewed
is rare. Of the LDPs reviewed in this research only 10 (out of 67) provided some form of theory of
change to illustrate their methodology. These are set out in detail in Appendix B.

An absence of a clear theory of change is often accompanied by a disconnection between aims and
practices. For example, while many LDPs are designed around a mode of practice based on organiza-
tional development or individual leadership development, many cite broader objectives that suggest that
they are actually aiming to have an impact on the broader society as a whole.

An example of this is the Africa Leadership Initiative (ALI), based on the Aspen Institute’s Henry Crown
Fellowship Program. The ALI states that it seeks to “provide the tools and perspectives necessary for
effective, enlightened leadership…in African society at large”24.Yet its practice consists of “four seminars”
based on studying classic and contemporary texts on leadership, which aim to change the way its
individual participants (20 per year) think about leadership.25 Its broad aims are set out in terms of broad
societal leadership that has an impact society-wide, yet it is fundamentally concerned with individuals
– a small number of individuals. It does not involve a sufficient number of participants, or provide the
means for passing on lessons learnt, that would be necessary to create a ‘critical mass’ of leaders; nor
does it sufficiently address leadership as a social and political process that involves ‘society at large’. It
concentrates instead on leadership as an individual attribute.

This kind of disconnection or disjuncture between aims and practices is common among LDPs that do
not have a clear methodology or theory of change, and can be confusing or misleading to policy-makers,
donors and potential participants.

For those LDPs that do provide a theory of change the second, and equally important, question to ask
is: ‘Is this theory of change validated? Do they explain, trace and verify their impact?’

Very few of the theories of change identified by this research adequately explain the processes through
which leadership is developed, or how this leadership (once developed) creates change. The causal link
is often obscure. Very few refer to theories of personal or social change, or look in detail at the ways in
which the particular methods and contents of a programme can or do have an impact either individually
or collectively. Most of the theories of change in Appendix B address individual components that are
used to develop competencies indicated as ‘leadership qualities’, but do not go further to explain how
these competencies relate to leadership or, crucially, how leadership relates to wider change (Unity
Foundation, AWID, APLP, IWDA). These LDPs seem unclear about the causal process through which
(desired and real) outcomes are (and can) be achieved, and their under-explained and non-validated
‘theories of change’ shed little light on these issues.

There are of course obvious difficulties associated with providing valid theories of change for less-
orthodox leadership development practices, or for LDPs that work in the face of complexity, and this
issue will be discussed further in section 2.5. However, it is important to note that the potential difficulty
of providing and validating a theory of change does not imply that the planning and development
processes of all leadership development initiatives should not be based upon solid theory and research.
24 http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/africa-leadership-initiative/ali-news/inaugural-ali-west-africa-class-meets
25 http://www.africaleadership.net/about/overview.htm
 13

It should also be noted that a validated and fully explained theory of change does not always require
the kind of quantitative data that such programmes may find hard to produce. A methodologically
sound qualitative case-study approach - as exemplified by the Project on Leadership and Building State
Capacity (Wolpe & McDonald, 2006) – can be sufficient.

There are a few programmes that do this well. Of the sample reviewed, 4 organizations (OIYP, Vital
Voices, Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity, and UNDP’s Leadership for Results) did
provide strong, research-based and fully explained theories of change that trace the programmes’ impact
through the processes of development and change (See Appendix B).

2.3 Who is the programme aimed at?

In addition to having an articulated understanding of leadership (criterion 1) and a theory a change
(criterion 2), it is important to consider who leadership programmes are aimed at. Most programmes
have a particular target group, or use certain selection criteria to choose participants of a particular
type. Who a programme is aimed at, the way in which it selects its participants, and how it is tailored to
a particular group all have the potential to affect the overall nature and impact of a LDP.

Most use a number of selection criteria, and the participant groups include:

i. New (and potential) leaders or existing leaders

ii. Grass-roots and local-level leaders or high-level leaders and elites
iii. Local or international participants
iv. Those drawn from specific sector or issue areas, or from a broad cross-section of sectors or areas
v. Those drawn from a specific gender group
vi. Those drawn from a specific ethnic group
vii. Those selected because of competence in a specific language.

i. New (and potential) leaders or Existing leaders

For those, like Gosling & Mintzberg (2004), who believe that participants in leadership development
initiatives should be rooted in the context of difficult leadership choices, and therefore should already
hold positions of leadership responsibility, the most appropriate LDPs will be those that are specifically
targeted at mid-career participants or those already in positions of authority.These kinds of programmes
tend to emphasise the enhancement of existing leadership skills and capacity, and tend not to talk about
‘teaching’ or ‘fostering’ leadership.

The argument for working with and training young or potential leaders, however, is also strong. By
beginning with young people with little or no leadership experience there are certain advantages: (1) In
working with young people who would not otherwise enter leadership positions, one can provide them
with the confidence, experience and capability to become successful leaders, increasing diversity and
social mobility among leaderships and elites. (2) Working with young people means one can effectively
begin with a blank canvas and, therefore, there is no need to deal with reversing learnt ‘bad’ leadership
practices. (3) To young people and those new to leadership roles all experiences are relatively new and
they will naturally be learning all the time.They will, therefore, be more open to the learning opportunity
of the leadership development programme and more able to take in and put into practice the lessons
learnt.
 14

30% of LDPs select from the mid-career group of leaders. For example: the Aspen Institute (and its
off-shoots the Nigeria Leadership Initiative, and the Africa Leadership Initiative); or CELA, whose
participants’ average age was 34.5 at the third Leadership Academy in 2004.

37% of programmes are aimed at young or potential leaders, including, the Chevening Scholarships, the
Deadly Leaders Program, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, the Latino Leadership Initiative,
the Mandela Rhodes Scholarships, Oxfam International Youth Partnerships, Pass Australia, and the
Young Women’s Leadership Program in Yemen.

33% of LDPs have a mixed bunch of participants at different stages in their careers, with different levels
of leadership experience, and facing different kinds of leadership challenges. For example the Institute
of Women’s Leadership’s Women Leading Change programme cites amongst those who would benefit
from its programme both women who “[h]ave significant responsibility within their organization, and/or
manage high-leverage projects or initiatives” and women who “[h]ave not fully unleashed their leadership
potential”26.This kind of variety could, if intentional and well-managed, be an asset; providing mentors and
the wisdom of experience for the younger members and some practical experience and the freshness
of new ideas for older members. However, there is also a risk that it could lead to programmes that are
a best-fit for all, and just-right for no-one.

ii. Grass roots and low-level leadership, or high level leadership and elites

For those who are concerned with the issue of whether a LDP is tailored to particular contexts and
issues relevant to its participants, and relates to a tangible need in that given context, then grass-roots
or local-based LDPs might be appropriate. These, often small-scale, local level LDPs seem to be less
willing to reduce leadership to a “set of skills and behaviours” (Williams, 2009: 3) and, given their
micro-level perspective, more able to see leadership as rooted within a particular context where it
addresses a particular set of issues and needs. As such, these programmes tend to be more context-
specific, more issue-focused, and are often more creative in their application of practical solutions to real
leadership challenges. The use of different practices and curricula for different contexts brings with it an
understanding of leadership that goes beyond a universal set of skills, traits or behaviours, to envisage a
context-specific process. Examples of this kind of programme include:
• The Women’s Leadership Development Program from ‘Women’s World Banking’, which provides
practical training to those women it supplies with help to create micro-finance organizations, helping
them to broaden their reach and increase their impact in a practical manner.
• The Smarter Stronger Leadership Program, which builds coalitions of school leaders working to
improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal children in Australia. It provides practical action plans,
peer-to-peer mentoring assistance, and coordinates group efforts to change government education
policy.

For those who are interested in the crucial role of ‘elites’ in the leadership and politics of development
then LDPs aimed at high-level leaders might be more appropriate than grass-roots LDPs. By ‘elites’
we do not necessarily mean the rich and powerful, but instead the (usually) small number of “leaders
occupying formal or informal positions of authority or power in public and private organizations or
sectors, at national or sub-national levels”.27 It is this small group who tend to make (and influence)
the key decisions in the political, economic, social and bureaucratic spheres and beyond. For example,

26 http://www.womensleadership.com/white_papers/Women_Leading_Change.pdf
27 http://www.dlprog.org/contents/about-us/our-core-focus/key-concepts.php#elites
 15

Banno and Ohno identify a very small number of elites - “4,300” - who influenced the Meiji revolution
in Japan in the late 19th Century which comprised about “0.012 percent of the total population (about
35 million)” (2010: 10).

These kinds of high-level, elite-focused programmes tend to take place nationally or internationally, and
have the potential to influence and affect the leaderships, and decision-making processes at a high level
(national, regional or international) that can have a broad impact on a larger group of people. Working at
this level could, then, potentially greatly increase the impact of a single leadership development initiative.
Most LDPs of this kind are large international programmes whose participants tend to be high-
level business leaders, as well as occasional NGO, government, media and civil society leaders. These
programmes tend to focus on the leadership attributes, styles and effectiveness of their individual
participants. For example:
• The Aspen Institute’s Henry Crown Fellowship, Africa Leadership Initiative, India Leadership Ini-
tiative, which work with high-level leaders from the business, government, and civil society sectors
across the world, bringing these leaders together to develop “the next generation of community
spirited leaders”28.

Other high-level programmes work within a single country or region, attempting to bring together
leaders from different sectors and groups to increase cooperation and understanding within that country
or region. These types of programmes tend to focus on group processes and ongoing context-bound
leadership issues. For example:
• The Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity, which works with national-level leaders
and elites within conflict-affected areas of the world. For example, in Burundi where grass-roots
level conflict resolution was going well, but national-level Hutu,Tutsi and Twa leaderships were still in
conflict with one another, and reconciliation and cooperation among these elites was necessary to
avoid a return to conflict (Wolpe & McDonald, 2006).

iii. Local or international participants

For those concerned with building a ‘critical mass’ of leaders within a given context who can create
developmental change, LDPs that are locally- or nationally-based and accept participants from a single
region or locality are probably the most appropriate. In these cases all the participants will have an
impact on the same context and can use the relationships and connections built-up, and the networks
created, through the training, to foster collective action within that context (see Box 3 on page 33 for
more detail on this idea). Similarly, for those who are concerned with a particular community, country
or region because of its particular issues, strategic importance or cultural difference, then LDPs that are
based locally would be most likely to incorporate an appreciation of these differences and issues into
the planning and structure of the programme.

On the other hand, there are a number of arguments for the benefits that international programmes
provide, that are less readily available from local or national programmes. Including:
• International experience and travel can be a means of broadening the mind and creating a global
perspective.
• Interaction with people from other countries can create a sense of shared national identity within
groups of leaders in diverse or ethnically fractured nations (e.g. APLP East-West Centre).
• Heterogeneous groups, in terms of geographic location, issue-areas, sectors, gender and ethnicity,

28 http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/henry-crown-fellowship-program/about-program
 16

can increase acceptance and understanding of difference.

• Heterogeneity can also facilitate useful knowledge- and skills-sharing between different groups with
regard to successes and failures, advocacy, donor management, etc. (e.g. Ashoka).
• In order for collective identities of ‘shared’ leadership to develop within individual systems (e.g. orga-
nizations, sectors, nations etc.) there must be some interaction among different systems (O’Connor
& Day, 2007: 66). So exposure to difference and external systems can facilitate cohesiveness and
collective leadership within systems.
• The world and the communities within it are becoming increasingly interconnected and interde-
pendent. This requires that we deal with diversity – of history, culture, race, ethnicity, language etc.
– rather than further compartmentalising it in order to avoid the inherent complexity this diversity
and interconnection brings. People who aspire to leadership will surely be required to develop skills
that allow them to successfully interact with people from other cultures and backgrounds as well as
dealing with the idiosyncrasies of their own.
• Large, international, well-funded programmes tend to have greater access to high quality experts
and staff (e.g. UNDP Leadership for Results29).

Of the programmes reviewed most LDPs (71%) run programmes on a national or regional basis, such
as:
• The Africa-specific Mandela Rhodes Scholarships, and the Africa Leadership Institute’s ABP Tutu
Leadership Fellowship (ALI); the Asia-specific APLP, and LEAP; the Latin American AVINA; and the
Eastern- European CELA.
• National organizations operating in just one country, including: AILC, ILNV, Indigenous Leadership
Program Victoria Health, the Unity Foundation, Americans for Indian Opportunity, Egyptian Insti-
tute for Directors; Ghana Institute for Public Management (GIMPA), and the Nigeria Leadership
Initiative.

Some of the larger programmes, however, operate on an international basis and will take participants
from almost any part of the world. These include: Aspen Institute’s Henry Crown Fellowship, AWID,
CCL, Chevening Scholarships and Fellowships, IWF Leadership Foundation Fellows Program, IWL’s
Women Leaders Changing the World Program, Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy.

iv. Those drawn from specific sectors or issue-areas, or from a broad cross-section of
sectors or areas

A number of LDPs draw their participants from a specific issue area or sector. Examples include:
Sectors:
• NGO or third sector leaders (Synergos)
• Entrepreneurs (Ashoka)
• Business (Technoserve)
• Government workers (civil servants and bureaucrats) (Civil Service College Singapore)
• Political leaders (iLEDA)
• Health Sector leaders (Population Leadership Program, Global Health Leadership Program)
• Education leaders (Smarter Stronger Leadership)

29 UNDP’s Leadership for Results Leadership Development Program has built a methodology based on the work of such high profile
leadership experts as Daniel Goleman, Fernando Flores, Ken Wilber, Rensis Likert, and Peter Senge (Sharma et al., 2005).
 17

Box 1: Contextual Appropriateness

When considering LPDs in the context of development it is important to consider the political, insti-
tutional, geographical and cultural differences, both between the west and the developing world, and
between individual countries, societies and communities.

LDPs are not always context-appropriate.They often attempt to address different leadership challenges
using the same theories or frameworks, or assume the same solutions for these different problems.
Many programs talk about “the developing world” or “Africa” as though it were a unitary whole.

The developing world as a whole is certainly different structurally to the Western World, and the struc-
tures of power and authority are also very different - especially with regard to the balance between
formal and informal systems of authority and institutional stability and predictability. However, each
different context within the developing world – whether national, regional, or local – also has its own
unique structure of leadership and ‘rules of the game’.

These differences in the types and structures of leaderships and institutions affect the types of challenges
leaders, elites and coalitions face and thus the appropriate techniques and methods required to tackle
them. They may also provide a rich source of unique and different leadership models, and processes.

To ignore these differences runs the risk of presenting all developing world leaders, and developing
world leaderships, as simply universally “other” and “underdeveloped” rather than appreciating the
rich diversity of culture, tradition and practice that comes from within these different contexts. In the
context of training it can result in feelings of dislocation among participants. For example, one recipient
of the Mandela Rhodes scholarship criticised that programme because “locations chosen for training
are usually not relevant to the cause…poverty eradication workshops take place in resorts instead of
slums” (Winn, 2010: 76).

The influence of political and cultural context on expectations and on the actions of leaders across the
world is well illustrated by the GLOBE project’s findings (House et al., 2004).This research suggests that
taking leaders out of their own context in order to attend a leadership development programme that
is not cognisant of the cultural, political and institutional idiosyncrasies of that context may not produce
the desired results.

However, while it is important for LDPs to be context-appropriate in their methods and practices there
are arguments (see above), which have been widely advocated, for the international experiences which
locally-held programmes are less able to provide.

When choosing LDPs or designing programmes donors may want, therefore, to consider a balance
between the potential benefits of international experience and heterogeneous groups, and the need to
ensure that their practices and programmes are contextually appropriate, given the wide differences in
the leadership contexts of different regions, countries and communities.

Successful balances between context-appropriate and international elements of leadership development

have been struck by international organizations such as LEAD, Ashoka, and OIYP.These programmes are
predominantly locally- or nationally-based, but also include an international element, where participants
from across the world come together to participate in groups, workshops and discussions.

Above all, the relative benefits of cultural specificity versus international experience should be consid-
ered with regard to the particular aims and outcomes that policy-makers have in mind.
 18

Issues:
• Human rights (WILD HR)
• Climate change and sustainable development (LEAD)
• Poverty alleviation (WWB)
• HIV/AIDS (Human Capital Foundation)
• Disadvantaged groups (including women and indigenous groups – see below)

There are a number of advantages to this kind of issue and/or sector specificity. First, within a given sector
or issue area there is a ready-made audience and group of participants to whom the programme will be
relevant and appropriate. Issue-based programmes can also harness the power of existing advocacy and
campaign networks to enhance their impact. By creating a link to a sector or issue area, the leadership
development process can become grounded in the realities of that particular area, which can make it
easier for participants to relate to the process, and the lessons learnt are more likely to be applicable
to the everyday work or lives of the participants. Issue- or sector-specific LDPs can also tailor the aims,
processes, skills, experiences and methods of the leadership development process to an issue and/or
environment with which the participants are familiar.

Two particular areas where issue-specific programmes are prevalent – gender and ethnicity – are
discussed in more detail below.

v. Those drawn from a specific gender group

There are certain circumstances where it may be advantageous for LDPs to be gender-specific. For
example it may be beneficial to use women-specific leadership development:

• In local areas or communities with predominantly female-led households – e.g. in conflict-affected

areas, or areas heavily affected by HIV/AIDS
• In societies where women are under-represented in leadership positions
• In areas where women suffer from discrimination, are disproportionately affected by poverty, or
have low levels of education.

Most LDPs that select on the basis of gender do so in favour of women. However, there are also a
small number of LDPs that run men-only courses. These tend to be for young men who are at risk of
offending or are from disadvantaged backgrounds. For example Pass Australia uses sport and mentoring
to develop leadership in young underperforming indigenous boys. Pass’ Indigenous South East Asia Tour
used football and travel as a way to engage with, broaden the minds of, and develop leadership skills in
young indigenous boys.

Gender-specific LDPs may also be appropriate where there are particular cultural issues to take into
account. For example, FaHCSIA’s leadership development programmes are gender-separate because of
indigenous cultural sensibilities, which favour gender-separate programmes.

vi. Those drawn from a specific ethnic group

Because of the specific issues faced by certain ethnic groups, it may be advantageous to undertake
ethnicity-specific leadership development.

Where the common issues faced by ethnic minority or indigenous groups are worth addressing, then
 19

Box 2: Women-specific LDPs

Women-specific LDPs provide a good case-study of how the particular audience and issue of women’s
leadership have shaped the distinctive style and nature of women’s leadership development.

In particular Women-specific LDPs: (i) tend to see leadership as a political process, (ii) are more
often based around concrete objectives and are, as such, vehicles for change, (iii) work together more
frequently as a movement.

(i) In general women-specific LDPs tend to show a greater appreciation of leadership as a political
process and willingness to take a more political, rights- and issue-based approach to the develop-
ment process.30 For example: AWID has moved away from its initial aim of involving women’s
voices in the development debate, to one of “transforming the process of development itself ”31 to
better reflect the interests of women, and therefore society as a whole. Similarly, IWDA shows a
political conception of leadership, and of its own role in the development of women’s leadership,
setting out clear and direct social rather than individual goals for change, including “women’s full
participation in decision making processes across all areas of life”32 focusing specifically on human
rights, democratic representation and inclusive developmental outcomes.
(ii) Women’s LDPs are a good example of an issue-based group of LDPs. As such they tend to have
explicit goals over and above simply ‘developing leadership’ in women. Women-specific LDPs
link leadership development objectives with concrete political and institutional change-goals. This
creates a solid theoretical and methodological link between leadership and the political process
of bargaining, coalition building and institutional formation and reform. Women-specific LDPs do
not just talk about creating ‘better’ leaders. The issue of how women can achieve leadership roles
in business/politics/NGOs/society is also directly addressed. Through this, leadership is viewed as a
vehicle for change, and for enhancing the position of women as a collective whole.
This is perhaps a reflection of the fact that an identifiable ‘cause’ or ‘issue’ to work towards – here
the position of women within society – creates a more instantly political outlook and provides
tangible, achievable goals that the abstract and ill-defined ideal of ‘better leadership’ does not. For
example, increasing the number of young women involved in public life (YWLP); strengthening
women’s authority in micro-finance initiatives (WWB-Women’s Leadership Development Pro-
gram); increasing the number of women in elected office (Vital Voices, Brazil); improving women’s
human rights (WILD HR; AWID); training young women in community radio (IWDA – Generation
Next Radio Project).
(iii) Women-specific LDPs, insofar as they already feel part of the wider ‘women’s movement’, show
greater recognition of the need to collaborate and work with other organizations to improve
their collective impact. For example, AWID state that “we are committed to work as part of a
movement to build our collective voice, power and influence”33. AWID hosted a forum session
entitled “Leading Our Future: Organizational Strategies for Women’s Leadership Development” in
which the leading women’s LDPs (including AWID and Women’s Learning Partnership) discussed
and shared their methodologies and frameworks for promoting women’s leadership34.

LDPs aimed specifically at these groups may be appropriate. The kinds of issues faced by minority
groups, and practical solutions to them, are directly addressed by many of the indigenous leadership
development programmes reviewed here, and this is, therefore, a sound methodological reason3031323334

30 There are, of course, some more generic women-specific LDPs that work on the same traditional western-style LD model, but the
majority are very different.
31 http://www.awid.org/eng/About-AWID/What-is-AWID
32 http://www.iwda.org.au/au/about/
33 http://www.awid.org/eng/About-AWID/What-is-AWID
34 http://www.awid.org/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Leading-Our-Future-Organizational-Strategies-for-Women-s-Leadership-Develop-
ment
 20

for selection based on ethnicity. For example:

• The Indigenous Leadership Fellowship/Program,Vic Health aims to prevent the discriminatory be-
haviour against Indigenous groups in the state of Victoria (Australia) that leads to poor mental health.
• Unity Foundation Indigenous Leaders Program & Deadly Leaders Program provide mentoring
and educational or career opportunities for Indigenous youth in Australia who would not otherwise
have access to those opportunities, or who are in danger of making bad choices.

If concerned with the disadvantage or discrimination that ethnic minorities face within societies, then
LDPs that aim to directly address such disadvantage might be appropriate. Examples of such LDPs
include:

• The Indigenous Leadership Network Victoria – which aims to strengthen leadership and provide
learning opportunities for the indigenous people of Victoria (Australia).
• FaHCSIA’s Indigenous Leadership Program – which provides leadership development to Aborigi-
nal and Torres Strait Islander young adults.
• Latino Leadership Initiative – which gives Latino American young people the chance to experience
‘executive education’ at Harvard with a view to broadening their horizons and creating a network
through which successful Latinos can inspire the younger generation to become high achievers.35
• WILD HR – which attempts to address the lack of “women of colour”36 in the USA involved in the
international human rights arena.
• Americans for Indian Opportunity – which is a Native American organization that draws on tra-
ditional philosophies to create a network of values-based leadership37 for disadvantaged Native
American tribes.

vii. Those selected because of competence in a specific language38

Although language is rarely explicitly used as a criterion for LDPs, the language in which a programme
conducts its training can be a serious limiting factor for participants, and often becomes an unofficial
selection criterion. Given that a large number of LDPs that operate in the developing world have their
roots in, or are derived from, the Anglo-Saxon tradition of leadership development, many programmes
operate in English. For example, the ALI and NLI, being as they are offshoots of the Aspen Institute’s
Henry Crown Fellowship, operate in English.

Similarly, in any multi-lingual country there often tends to be a language of the elites – commonly in
the developing world this is the language of the former colonists, including French, Spanish and English.
Using an ‘international’ language certainly means wider accessibility to people of different nationalities,
and hence the benefits of an international programme in terms of a wide range of perspectives, etc. (see
above). However, the tendency of major international LDPs to conduct their programmes in these ‘elite
languages’ can have a number of effects.

First, the dominance of programmes conducted in English (even among LDPs in the context of devel-
opment) may discriminate in favour of English-speaking country nationals. Second, the use of ‘elite
languages’ may discriminate in favour of the upper- and middle-classes of developing countries who have
higher levels of education.The third effect is to reinforce existing patterns of elite leadership. Winn, in her

35 http://www.centerforpublicleadership.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=352&Itemid=107
36 http://www.wildforhumanrights.org
37 http://www.aio.org/about_aio
38 Please note, this review, as a unilingual desk-based study, does not represent an accurate reflection of the language spread of LDPs
working in the context of development. One requirement for inclusion in this review was access to material (or a website) in the
English language.
 21

analysis of the Mandela Rhodes Foundation’s Fellowship Program, criticises the programme for having
just such an unacknowledged consequence. One participant is quoted as stating:

“You have English-language educated students who mostly spend their lives in cushy spaces purporting
to be leaders in a majority poor country where most people are not adequately educated. I’d rather
have a poor child get the Mandela-Rhodes than an ambitious, already advantaged child accumulate
more opportunity for privilege and access to world-class education” (quoted in Winn, 2010: 60).

Certainly there is a need for a common language among participants of LDPs, and this research does
not suggest that programmes conducted in ‘elite’ languages should be dismissed, but those who are
responsible for selecting, funding or creating programmes perhaps ought to consider carefully the effects,
both positive and negative, of the language in which a programme is conducted.

Winn’s cautionary tale (above) is perhaps one argument for a more localised approach. If you do not
want language to be a limiting factor, then grass-roots or locally-led programmes, which are inevitably
more frequently conducted in the common or first language of most prospective participants, may seem
more appropriate. Inevitably, however, this may mean sacrificing the benefits that international interac-
tion and/or travel may bring (see section 2.3 iii).39

We have now looked at the first three criteria by which to assess leadership programmes: (2.1) ‘Articu-
lated understanding of leadership’, (2.2) ‘Theory of change’ and (2.3) ‘Who the programme is aimed
at’. In the following section we will discuss the fourth criterion: the programme’s methods and content.

2.4 What are the programme’s methods and content?

When assessing a LDP it is important to consider both the methods used and the content offered.
Methods and content vary widely, and tend to depend largely upon three factors:

• The conception(s) of what leadership is: what is being developed

• The aims of the programme
• The theory of change: how a programme conceives that change can be facilitated or brought about.

Often methods and content are not easy to separate; with methods sometimes determining or restricting
the content and vice versa. As such, the methods and the contents of programmes are discussed
together here, in terms of important categories of practice, and their varying appropriateness for LDPs
in the context of development.

The categories discussed here are:

i. Traditional classroom-based teaching
ii. Action Learning
iii. Experiential Learning
iv. Competency-based training
v. Personal Transformation Leadership Development
vi. Educational Scholarships
vii. Entrepreneurship

39 This research was a desk-based study using questionnaires, interviews, correspondence and internet research all conducted in
English (the first language of the author). As such it does not claim to be able to accurately represent the distribution of LDPs by
language spoken. However, anecdotal evidence does seem to back up the claim that English, as one of few internationally spoken
languages, is commonly used as the main language for leadership development training in many different areas of the world.
 22

viii. A variety of methods and practices

Most programmes use a number of methods and contents although they are often predominantly
based around a single methodology.

i. Traditional classroom-based teaching

Many programmes (35%) are based around classroom-based teaching, developed out of the traditions
of western management and organizational leadership programmes that began in the mid-20th Century.
Most prominently, the methods include the kind of seminar-led leadership development made famous
by the Aspen Institute and its affiliate programmes40 but also include workshops, lectures from existing
‘successful’ leaders who provide an example of a leadership style, and discussion of leadership theory
and organizational leadership practice. The dominant leadership paradigm here is that of leadership
as an individual attribute, and the emphasis tends to be on personal and professional development,
and becoming a ‘better leader’. These programmes are, therefore, very much tailored to individual and
organizational leadership.

These traditional classroom-based programmes, as applied in the context of development, or for devel-
opmental ends, have been criticised for a number of reasons. First, Ken Williams of the Academy for
Educational Development (AED) criticises their lack of innovation in comparison to other types of LDPs,
stating that there are some methodological “gaps in the leadership development strategies of some of
the well-capitalized companies with household names” (2009: 3). It is also sometimes noted that this
kind of leadership development is very abstract and not adequately rooted in the practical issues of the
context. Hendy raises this issue in a review of Pacific Leadership Development Programs, stating:

“There was an implicit assumption that the action of delivering training equated to training skill.
The lack of specific training expertise was demonstrated by the training designs (multiple ‘expert’
trainers delivering mini-lectures, discussion, practitioner anecdotes and experiential exercises), the
majority of which may increase levels of knowledge but are unlikely to encourage the application of
new skills” (2006: ii).

Similarly, a note of caution might be struck with regard to the reliance, among this group, on traditional
(Anglo-Saxon) leadership models and practices when operating outside of its original environment.
This type of leadership wisdom certainly has much to offer and is rooted in a wealth of research and
academic expertise. However, some appreciation of the fact that the context in which these models are
being used differs markedly from that in which they were conceived would be well received.

However, it could also be argued that it is the very abstract, context-independent, nature of these
large international programmes that gives them their value - making them almost universally applicable
across many different contexts. Classroom teaching is also a familiar teaching method and a comfortable
scenario for most participants, some of who may find more unorthodox methods daunting.

Examples of programmes that use predominantly traditional classroom-based practices are: the Nigeria
Leadership Initiative; LEAP Africa; Ghana Institute for Management and Public Administration; CELA;
CaDeCo; the Aspen Institute; Africa Leadership and Progress Network; the Africa Leadership Initia-
tive; the Latino Leadership Initiative; the Africa Leadership Academy; Civil Service College Singapore;
the International Women’s Fellowship; LEAP; iLEDA; United Nations University International Leader-
ship Institute; the Asia Pacific Leadership Program (East-West) and the Lee Kwan Yew School of
40 The Henry Crown Fellowship, the Africa Leadership Initiative, the Nigeria Leadership Initiative, the Central America Leadership
Initiative, the India Leadership Initiative, and the Middle East Leadership Initiative. See http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-
programs
 23

Public Policy.

ii. Action learning

Action learning places the practice of training and learning in a real-world (or real-work) situation. The
experience through which people learn is the same experience in which they will put into practice the
lessons learned. It involves a carefully managed balance between “action and reflection for the purpose
of learning from experience and developing complex ways of knowing, doing, and being” (O’Connor
& Day, 2007: 72). It also enhances the development of shared practices, which are key to developing
collective leadership identities. Action learning occurs in the same team or group with which one works,
so bonds and shared understandings that are formed here will remain in place in practice.

This method challenges traditional leadership development approaches that are based on cognitive or
behavioural models of learning and emphasise the accumulation of a body of knowledge or a set of skills
or competencies. Instead what is considered to be important with regard to action learning is not ‘what
is learnt’ but the process of learning, through action and experience, reflection and observation.

O’Connor & Day suggest that the biggest challenge for leadership development is how to link individual
leader development to more collective leadership development. Action learning, they suggest, helps the
development of different facets of identity, which offers a useful lens to view the link between different
levels of leadership and is therefore “a methodology well-suited for supporting multi-level identity devel-
opment” (O’Connor & Day, 2007: 71). At the collective level of leadership identity – action learning
provides understanding of ‘who we are’ as an organization or a collective and a vision of ‘who we want
to be’. It “highlights the importance of developing collective leadership identities as a strategy for helping
organizations more effectively address complex challenges” (ibid: 85-6).

Central to the action learning methodology is the development of systemic social networks:

“[T]he web of inter- and intra-organizational relationships that facilitate the creation of meaning,
strategic action, and forward progress on shared goals…Social networks are developmental
insomuch as they give shape to the overall organizational identity. They are also instrumental in that
they provide the vehicle for getting things done in the organization” (ibid).

Action learning, therefore, is concerned with processes rather than leader attributes; with collective
forms of leadership rather than individual leader identities; with outcomes that provide a pragmatic
rather than an abstract framework. It also highlights the need for leadership development to be context-
appropriate, championing the idea that:

“…little behavioral development can be practiced, demonstrated, and sustained as a result of a

multi-day off-site experience. Even when cognitive, emotional, or behavioural change is experienced
through programs, it is almost exclusively at the individual level, that is, the development of the ‘self
as leader’ identity. (ibid: 74)”.

However, given its contextually-bound nature, action learning must be based around some kind of
organization or identifiable system that cooperates with the action learning process. Consequently it is
a method that is less applicable for ‘youth’ or pre-career leadership development, for bringing together
diverse groups of people who can learn from a cross-cultural experience, for leadership development
in the context of conflict or hostile organizations or systems, or for societal or informal leadership
development where the ‘system’ concerned is not a bounded one, and cannot be controlled in the
necessary ways. In this way it loses, to a certain extent, the cross-sectoral, cross-boundary linkages
 24

that other programmes can create, although it does emphasise the need for inter-system linkage and
understanding.

Very few of the leadership development programmes reviewed here use true action-learning practices.
The few examples in the group reviewed include the following.

• RRI engages in action learning in the field of development: using ‘just-in-time’ leadership develop-
ment training and support methods. Although this provides very little time for the reflection and
planning that action learning theory suggests is necessary, and little input beyond the initial short-
term intervention.
• INTRAC uses action learning principles in many of its leadership programmes including group work,
case studies, role play, and peer support. It also has inter-organizational Action Learning Groups,
which meet regularly to support ongoing learning processes.
• Vision Quest Africa uses action learning as its central methodology throughout its training pro-
grammes and services offered to organizations.

Action learning may be underrepresented as a methodology within the sample reviewed here, as it is
generally applied on an ad hoc basis, organization by organization.

iii. Experiential learning

Experiential learning techniques can be useful for those who believe that the best way to ‘learn’ or
develop leadership is through experience, but are concerned with a context where there is not a
bounded, compliant organization or system, where a number of different organizations or systems
are involved or where the time and resources are not available to implement the full action learning
methodology.

Experiential learning is similar to action learning in that the central tenet is the key role that experience
plays in the learning process (Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatzis & Mainemelis, 1999). From this perspective
experience is seen as the focal point for learning. It forms the basis of reflection and observation; these
are then processed into new lessons for action, which are once again tested by experience through a
feedback process. Here the emphasis is on the process of learning (the experience) rather than on the
outcomes (knowledge as an ‘entity’ or body of accumulated facts) (ibid: 26).

When selecting a LDP that uses experiential learning methods one must be aware that: “using experi-
ence effectively to develop executive talent is not as straightforward as offering training programs”
(McCall & Hollenbeck, 2007: 93). Experiential learning involves a greater investment of resources. Specifi-
cally, experiential learning is a process that involves time-lapse between initial experience, observation
and reflection, planning and implementation. This feedback process is, necessarily, an ongoing one and
each experience leads to a new action, which is again subject to observation and reflection, planning
and implementation. According to Dewey, the “crucial educational problem is that of procuring the
postponement of immediate action upon desire until observation and judgement have intervened”
(1938:69, quoted in Kolb, 1984: 22). Thus the time required for experiential learning is greater than
conventional learning methods. Consequently, costs are also increased as course lengths and face-to-
face time increase.

As experiential learning suggests that both the learning process and the knowledge (or what is learned)
are subjective, the design of such a programme can be problematic:
 25

“There is no science to dictate how to use specific experiences to develop specific skills in specific
people at the right time. For all these reasons, using experience rather than programs to drive the
development process is itself a challenging proposition” (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2007:93).

Another issue is our lack of understanding of how experience teaches. That is, how do we know which
people learn what from which experiences?

However, the unpredictability of outcomes and the subjectivity of experience are not necessarily reasons
for policy-makers to shy away from this approach. There is much evidence to indicate that experiential
learning techniques, as opposed to more conventional teaching methods, mirror much more closely
the natural processes of cognitive development and behavioural adaptation (Kolb, 1984; Dewey, 1938;
Piaget, 1970). As such, it has been suggested that learning through experience is likely to lead to more
lasting results and real change than traditional classroom techniques. If the process is carefully structured,
providing space for the feedback process to occur, the unpredictability can be minimized. For example:

• Training can be timed to coincide with particular natural experiences (e.g. entry to college, first job,
first management position etc.)
• 360º feedback, which provides multiple perspectives on individual’s behaviour
• Coaching and mentoring to work with individuals through their experiences, enhancing the observa-
tion, reflection and planning stages
• Various web-based tools to help leaders learn from experience.

The LDPs within the sample that use experiential learning models are listed below. These programmes
use a variety of different kinds of experiential learning techniques, which are also set out below:

• AILA has a practical experience-based curriculum including, for example, outward-bounds-style

activities at the Adventure Links experiential learning centre.
• ALA’s leadership curriculum is “a highly experiential course”41, including ‘leadership labs’ with group
activities, and a culminating service project which has an impact on an African community.
• East-West’s APLP uses a mixture of “advanced interdisciplinary analysis of emergent regional issues
with experiential leadership learning”42 including through internships, applied leadership projects and
field studies (experiential field activities).
• iLEDA balances experiential learning techniques with more traditional forms of learning practice.
• LEAD’s leadership development programmes involve personal development plans, coaching, leader-
ship teams, field visits, thematic panels, LEAD action projects, dialogue and reflective practice.
• LEAP uses leadership simulations, interactive problem solving, and action-planning.
• LWI uses ‘outward bound’-style experiential learning techniques in its Palestinian-Israeli Emerging
Political Leaders Program.

It is important to note, however, that not all who claim to use experiential learning techniques appear
to apply these practices with an awareness of the importance of the full experiential learning method-
ology. That is, not all include the time and space for reflection, or accompany the experiences with the
feedback process of learning.

iv. Competency-based training

Another common method for leadership development is competency-based training. Many LDPs base
their programmes around developing competencies that are associated with different leadership models.
41 http://www.africanleadershipacademy.org/site/academics/ala_curriculum/lea_curriculum/Leadership.html
42 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/aplp
 26

This stems from the common conception of leadership as a set of traits, qualities or attributes, derived
from early important leadership works such as Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (1974), which lists over
18,000 different leadership traits.

The idea behind this approach is that good or successful leadership can be described in terms of a
number of different competencies. If LDPs can develop these competencies in their participants, then
these individuals will begin to produce the right leader behaviours for individual and organizational
success (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2007).

This ‘competencies approach’ to leadership is criticised by McCall & Hollenbeck as “[t]ruly an engi-
neering model, the assumption is that we can develop it, fix it, and/or make it work” (Ibid: 90). Certainly,
without an appropriate theory of change, competency-based leadership development could be seen
as taking a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach to causality: because leaders have been shown to have
certain competencies, developing these competencies in their participants will, it is assumed, transform
them into great leaders.

However, where there has been an assessment of need, and leaders have been shown to have a lack
of competency in certain areas, or to lack the appropriate skills to be effective in their leadership roles,
then a methodologically sound competency-based programme might prove successful.

Competency-based training was cited as a key method by the following LDPs: East-West Centre’s Asia
Pacific Leadership Program, LEAP’s Emerging Leaders Program, Synergos, The Latino Leadership
Initiative, and LEAD.

Many other LDPs, whilst not directly talking about competencies, base their programmes on leader-
ship attributes, traits and skills43 including: the Abshire Inamori Leadership Academy (AILA); African
Leadership Academy (ALA); CELA; FaHCSIA’s Indigenous Leadership Program; GIMPA’s Executive
Masters in Governance & Leadership, and Executive Masters in Public Administration; InterAction’s
Active Citizen’s programme; IWF Leadership Foundation Fellows Program; Leaders’ Quest Founda-
tion; PLP Global Health Leadership Program; The Unity Foundation’s Deadly Leaders Program; and
Vision Quest Africa.

This group (including those who do not directly mention ‘competency-based’ leadership development)
make up 25% of the whole sample.

v. Personal transformation leadership development

Personal Transformation Leadership Development (PTLD) is an increasingly popular method of leader-

ship development. To put it simply, it is based upon the old adage that ‘if you want to change others you
first have to change yourself ’. Described by Leiderman as “Inside out leadership development” (2007:
199), its major focus is on the individual, with the assumption that if an individual is transformed in terms
of their personal awareness - of their values, actions and influence – their effect on others (their leader-
ship) will have a deeper and more lasting impact. This emphasis on the individual within the leadership
development process does not, unusually, reflect a conception of leadership that is based on the indi-
vidual leader or a top-down form of leadership. In fact, personal transformation is often described as a
means of achieving lasting social change through the creation of networks and a critical mass of leaders.
The difference here is that the theory of change suggests that personal transformation is a necessary
pre-requisite to leadership for social transformation or change. As a result, while inherently a form of
43 Here we are referring to those programmes that talk about ‘leadership skills’, ‘leadership competencies’, ‘leadership traits’ or ‘leader-
ship attributes’. These descriptions were felt to refer to competency-style approaches even if not by name.
 27

leadership development that focuses on the individual, PTLD can often be quite rooted in context.

PTLD is based upon a set of assumptions.

• Real change is a conscious choice that results from increased awareness and experience.
• When individuals consciously choose to transform themselves internally they also take action ex-
ternally.
• Interaction between people of different backgrounds and with different experiences increases inner
awareness that can contribute to both individual and social change (Leiderman, 2007:205).

PTLD theory (based upon transformational leadership theory) assumes that a leader must necessarily
be a role-model and, therefore, that they cannot truly lead others until they know themselves better
and can provide a consistent leadership model for followers. Because of the depth of personal change
encouraged by these initiatives:

“…designers of such efforts believe that these are among the most lasting ways to stimulate
community change—particularly if a critical mass of leaders can be developed and if they can sustain
their transformed behaviours over time” (ibid.: 200).

Within PTLD initiatives a wide variety of different methods are often used including, importantly, an
emphasis on experiential learning.
For example:

• Synergos links personal transformation with social change

• CaDeCo holds 1-2 day personal transformation seminars
• Leadership WIsdom Initiative
• LEAP Africa talks about personal transformation as a necessary step for organizational and com-
munity transformation, stating that “the transformation of Nigeria can only begin in the hearts and
minds of its people.”44

vi. Educational Scholarships

For policy-makers with an interest in the importance of higher education for leadership and develop-
ment, or who believe there is a dearth of well-educated, skilled and capable leaders who have a sense
of the importance of good leadership for their own communities, then the combination of leadership
development and educational scholarships may be useful. These kinds of programmes generally come
in two forms. First, scholarships for secondary or tertiary education in a range of institutions, accom-
panied by some form of leadership development course, mentoring or support; and, second, free (or
scholarship-based) secondary education in dedicated institutes, which have an emphasis on leadership
within the curriculum and in students’ free time.

These programmes share a belief that by incorporating aspects of leadership development into high-
quality educational qualifications (A-Levels, Secondary and Higher certificates, Undergraduate and
Postgraduate degrees) they can create a cadre of leaders with the level of intelligence and mental
capacity necessary to lead in the face of complexity. In order to deal with the multifarious challenges of
leading in the context of development, such as managing donors, dealing with a weak or non-existent
infrastructure, budgetary pressures and financial instability, this approach suggest that leaders require
mental capacity, knowledge, and leadership skills.

Some of these programmes attempt to redress the lack of opportunities presented to young people
44 http://www.leapafrica.org/Speeches.php
 28

from disadvantaged communities, for example, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program in Australia.
Others simply aim to select academically outstanding students, with a commitment to leadership or
to community development. For example, the ALA which, while attempting to level the playing field
to a certain extent by setting all fees according to ability to pay and pledging to never turn a student
down on the basis of an inability to afford the school, bases its selection primarily on proven academic
achievement.

Some criticise programmes that have high academic criteria in contexts where education above basic
secondary level is a luxury that few can afford and higher education enrolment is low, and often of
poor or variable quality; seeing this as equal to selecting based upon family background or wealth. These
criteria, therefore, could be accused of reinforcing existing elite patterns within these countries, by
offering such opportunities only to those who already have access to good education, and are therefore
already part of an ‘elite’.

However, defenders of these programmes claim that this criticism is unfair. The act of being awarded
such a prestigious scholarship or winning a place on a well-funded leadership programme, they claim,
would automatically propel one into the ‘elite’ by virtue of the fact that such experiences are not
available to all. The elite of any community is not a static or unitary group and, by virtue of the need
to meet academic requirements for educational scholarships and training programmes, such academic
selection criteria are necessary, and not harmful to the development of new and reform-focused forms
of leadership and authority (Winn, 2010: 75).

Within the sample of programmes covered by this research, two institutions were found which provide
free secondary education with a leadership development component. These are:

• The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy, which is a secondary school aiming to provide high qual-
ity education and leadership development for South African girls from disadvantaged backgrounds. 45
• The African Leadership Academy, which is a secondary school that selects based on merit and aca-
demic achievement and integrates the principles of leadership development, entrepreneurship and
uniquely African issues into the secondary curriculum.

This review found three examples of leadership development programmes that also provide scholar-
ships for secondary and higher education in high-quality institutions.

• The Mandela Rhodes Scholarship Programme, which provides successful candidates who exhibit
academic excellence and leadership potential full and generous bursaries to pursue post-graduate
education, as well as leadership development programmes with fellow scholars.46
• The Chevening Scholarship Programme, which provides scholarships and networking opportuni-
ties for individuals identified as likely future leaders and influencers across the world.
• The Indigenous Youth Leadership Program (Australia), which provides opportunities for young
people from isolated or disadvantaged indigenous backgrounds to study at secondary or higher
education levels in prestigious institutions across Australia and creates networks or coalitions of stu-
dents, their families and communities, education providers, philanthropists and businesses to provide
funding and leadership development opportunities.47

There are also a number of institutions that provide some academic qualifications as part of their
leadership development programmes. For example, the Ghana Institute for Management and Public
45 http://oprahwinfreyleadershipacademy.o-philanthropy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=owla_mission
46 http://www.mandelarhodes.org/MRF_Scholarships.htm
47 http://www.fya.org.au/what-we-do/indigenous/iylp/
 29

Administration has an “Executive Masters in Governance and Leadership”48; and the Global Health
Leadership Program includes one semester at the University of Washington49, taking post-graduate
academic courses.

vii. Entrepreneurship

It is worth mentioning the growing field of entrepreneurship development as a form of leadership

development that has been shown to have a tangible impact in communities in the developing world.
This field has grown since the noted social entrepreneur Mohammed Yunus (of the micro-finance orga-
nization Grameen Bank) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Entrepreneurship development involves
the training, encouragement, mentoring and support of social (or other) entrepreneurs. It involves
working with people who are already leaders within their field or their communities to increase their
impact. It can include elements of traditional leadership development but is based on the action learning
methodology, in that training or support tends to be integrated with a participant’s actual entrepre-
neurial activities rather than taking place separately. These kinds of programmes can differ fairly widely
in their practices, and this depends upon their specialisation and the kinds of support they give to the
entrepreneur.

The following are good examples.

• Ashoka works with social entrepreneurs with a vision, to develop this with the help of its financial,
legal, personal and practical support.
• Vital Voices engages in social entrepreneurship development where there is a visible need within a
given community.
• Women’s World Banking WLDP aims to expand the influence of women as entrepreneurs within
their communities, and encourages women to become involved in micro-finance projects, or to run
their own micro-finance initiatives.
• For the Africa Leadership Academy (ALA) entrepreneurial training is one of the three pillars of the
curriculum along with African Issues, and leadership development, and the school was created by
two self-identifying social entrepreneurs, Fred Swaniker and Chris Bradford.
• Technoserve believes that by “identifying and nurturing” emerging entrepreneurs they can build
rural economies, and create jobs, opportunities and incomes for communities.50

viii. A variety of methods and practices

The above categories of methods and content for leadership development are meant as a broad
guide to some of the main approaches available. However, most LDPs now choose to use a number of
different methods and practices in the process of leadership development. As well as one (or more)
of the above methods, many LDPs now employ a number of unorthodox or non-traditional methods.
Indeed, Hernez-Broome & Hughes note in their review of leadership development practice that “[c]
lassroom-type leadership training—for long the primary formal development mode—is now comple-
mented (or even supplanted) by activities as diverse as high ropes courses or reflective journaling”
(2004: 25).

Some alternative practices that may not form the back-bone of a leadership development initiative, but
might be worth considering for their added value include the following.

• Individual leadership or development projects: This involves undertaking small-scale practical leader-
48 http://www.gimpa.edu.gh/
49 http://population-leaders.washington.edu/fellows/globalHealthLeadershipProgram.shtml
50 http://www.technoserve.org/work-impact/practices/developing-entrepreneurs.html
 30

ship projects. For example, building houses in low-income areas (APLP).51

• Ongoing mentoring: Mentoring can be formal or informal, but essentials for an effective mentor-
ing and coaching programme include: qualified coaches; targeted development – a clear focus for
engagement – which focuses on achievable tasks; a partnership of effort – all three parties (leader,
mentor, organization) must be committed and working toward the same goals; and time-limited ap-
plications – there must be a defined period of engagement (6 months/year) to avoid dependency.
• Network development activities or coalition building (see box 3).
• Group leadership or development projects: These are similar to the individual projects above, but
involve working with other participants in a group setting and provide better opportunity for group
reflection, and role acceptance.
• Career development assistance: This is a common practice within many organizational LDPs where
assistance is provided for an individual to ‘get ahead’ in their career following leadership develop-
ment training. This is also used for youth leadership development programmes which are targeted
at early or pre-career individuals.
• The opportunity to gain practical leadership experience: This takes the form of internships or other
forms of project and can be part of an action learning component of a leadership development
programme where the experience is carefully monitored, and time is given for reflection and ob-
servation.

Each of these practices may have some value in the process of leadership development. However, even
with these ‘added extras’ it is important that they are properly planned and well-implemented. The
way in which these practices are employed will affect their impact in just the same way as the more
mainstream methods.

Of the 67 LDPs reviewed only 7 offer no form of ‘alternative practices’ as part of their programmes.
These tend to be LDPs with training programmes that can most accurately be described as organiza-
tional leadership development. For example: CaDeCo, Egyptian Institute of Directors, or the Institute
for Women’s Leadership.

Box 3: Networks
Of particular note is the use of networks by LDPs. The use of networking tools and the development
of alumni networks is now widespread among LDPs; 58% of the programmes reviewed here create
networks of fellows or alumni from their training programmes.
Networks can be used in a number of ways depending upon context. International networks can
serve as support networks for current or past participants of leadership development programmes; as
recruitment or nomination mechanisms; and as ways of building awareness about programmes. They
can reinforce leadership learning and provide opportunities for remote mentoring among participants.
However, as many of the contacts made across the networks of international LDPs may work or
operate in very different sectors or countries, and in different issue-areas that may not be relevant
to one-another, these kind of networks may not necessarily support cooperation and collaboration
outside of the sphere of leadership development.
Local, national or issue- and sector-specific programmes that create networks between current and
past-participants, on the other hand, can expect many of the above benefits of the networks as well as
the potential to create coalitions of interest or action among their members that may serve a practical
purpose as well as a personal one.
However networks are being used, there are some key points to note: First, programmes that encourage
their members to broaden and/or sustain the network (or coalition) themselves rather than relying on
centralised communication or organization from the LDP can potentially expect to facilitate a stronger
and more sustainable network. Second, if networks are integrated into the programme from the first
51 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/education/aplp/aplp-experience/second-semester/spring-project/
 31

point of contact, utilised as a means of communication throughout the leadership development process,
and participants are encouraged to use them then network members may become more accustomed
to this means of contact by the end of the in-person training and may be more likely to use it going
forward.
The examples below illustrate the wide variety of ways that networks across the sample of LDPs
reviewed:
• Dare to Lead requires that its members commit to being active members of the network and of Dare to
Lead. The programme asks that members build awareness of Dare to Lead, encourage new membership,
use the coalition as a conduit for information, making sure that news and updates are passed along to other
members, and use any form of available media to build awareness of the issue of indigenous educational
outcomes, and of the coalition. Dare to Lead describes itself as a ‘coalition’ within its literature, and as such
the principles of networks and coalitions are embedded within the organization.
• Vital Voices encourages its participants to “pay it forward”52 once they return home, and spread the impact of
their mentoring and leadership training by passing on the lessons they learnt to women in their own country
and using their own initiative, become the mentors of other women thus spreading the network and creating
“exponential”53 impact. Vital voices state that they have “trained and mentored more than 8,000 emerging
women leaders from over 127 countries in Asia, Africa, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East since 1997.
These women have returned home to train and mentor more than 500,000 additional women and girls in
their communities”54.
• Indigenous Leadership Network Victoria encourages participants, after having taken part in the program,
to run a similar program in their own community with the help of a mentor. This is intended to spread the
influence of the network as far as possible given the limited resources available.55
• AVINA’s working model is based around the concepts of networks and partnerships. It begins by identify-
ing potential partners from civil society and the business community who share the values of sustainable
development. These partnerships are then strengthened by providing spaces where they can communicate
their messages of change. Links of trust, values and ideas for change are built between partners and across
sectors. Partners are then encouraged to use these links and relationships for collective action for sustainable
development.56
• UNDP’s Leadership for Results programme encourages and facilitates the creation of cross-sectoral net-
works of common experience and understanding. In each country in which it operates, it aims to forge
stronger ties across sectors and to build a common understanding and awareness of the issues of HIV/AIDS
upon which the members of these networks can build to effect change.57
• Ashoka builds networks between social entrepreneurs in order that they can share stories of successes, chal-
lenges overcome, similar projects in different countries, and support one another with the wide variety of
skills of its members. Ashoka also builds networks between their members and business partners who agree
to provide advice, skills, business models, financial advice, accountancy services, PR, IT, and legal representation
to Ashoka’s ‘changemakers’.58
For some LDPs the ‘network’, although perhaps initially well-intentioned, has proved too difficult to
sustain or to make adequate use of. For example, the Chevening Review (2006) states that the network
has not been successfully maintained due to lack of contact between posts and the scholars.
One of the limitations of networks is that they often take an investment of time and other resources to
‘kick-start’. However, the examples above show that if they are well-thought out with a specific purpose
or goal in mind; if there is sufficient encouragement for participants to use them; and if the value is
clearly explained, then networks can become tools for skills sharing, support systems, spreading the
influence and impact of leadership development, and even for coalition-building.

52535455565758

52 http://www.vitalvoices.org/what-we-do/issues/economic-empowerment/mentoring
53 Ibid.
54 http://www.vitalvoices.org/about-us/about
55 http://www.ilnv.com.au/
56 http://www.avina.net/web/siteavina.nsf/page?openform&Sistema=1&idioma=eng
57 http://www.undp.org/hiv/leadcapdev.htm
58 http://www.ashoka.org/strategic
 32

After covering the four criteria ‘articulated understanding of leadership’, ‘theory of change’, ‘who the
programme is aimed at’ and the ‘programme’s methods and content’, we will now move on to the fifth
and last criterion: ‘impact assessment and evaluation”.

2.5 Impact assessment and evaluations

The final criterion that policy-makers should be concerned with when assessing, selecting, supporting or
designing LDPs is: Will a programme be evaluated and, if so, how?

Impact assessment is a vital check on the validity of a theory of change and the appropriateness and
efficacy of a programme’s methods and content.

Martineau and Hannum suggest that LDPs must create a “chain of impact” (2003) that connects leader-
ship development with outcomes. This chain begins with a definition of leadership, clear aims, and a
theory of change, and can most effectively be closed through appropriate evaluations. Most programmes
don’t close this chain, but still make assumptions about their impact based on anecdotal evidence.

i. Evaluating complex processes:

Impact can be measured at three different levels.

• Personal – whether an individual’s behaviour, attitude or career has changed as a result of the pro-
gramme.
• Organizational59 – whether the above personal changes had an impact on organizational perfor-
mance.
• Societal – whether the changes in ‘leadership’ have had an impact on the society in general (for
example reducing corruption, increasing cooperation, changing laws, social norms or attitudes etc.).

Evaluations that dig deeper to look at the social impact that a programme has are very rare among the
sample of LDPs reviewed here. Social impact evaluations address whether LDPs are having an effect
on wider society or social development in the communities in which they work. The vast majority of
evaluations, on the other hand, look only at the first sphere of impact – the personal – and many tend
to be further limited in terms of what is measured and how. See, for example, the evaluation form used
by LEAD (Destrez and Harrison, 2011: Appendix II).

There are a number of challenges and complexities associated with measuring the performance of
Leadership Development Programmes. Ogiogio sets some out these difficulties in a report on perfor-
mance measurement for the ACBF:

“The complexity arises from a number of conceptual and methodological issues, including the fact
that benefits associated with capacity building60 are not readily quantifiable and the rate of return
to investment in capacity building cannot be derived without significant margin of error” (Ogiogio,
2005: iv).

Avolio (2005: 172) lists sixteen points of individual impact that can be measured, with regard to leader-
ship development, including what a person believes, what they have learned, how they think, what they
know, how they behave, how able they are to change etc. When organizational and societal impacts are

59 By organization, here, we mean any coordinated group – for example, a family, a church, a business, an NGO, a school etc.
60 Similar issues apply for leadership development as for capacity building.
 33

also included it becomes clear that evaluation, especially of something as elusive as leadership, is not a
simple matter. It requires knowledge, time and resources that not all LDPs currently have.

The challenges of evaluating complex systems include the following.

• The complexity of the processes being evaluated mean that a number of potential causal factors are
involved. Isolating and extracting the causal impact of leadership itself can, therefore, be difficult, and
the planning processes needed to tease out these factors are complex (Jinnett & Kern, 2007: 316).
• Evaluations need to be narrow enough to retain focus on the specific research concerns but also
broad enough to capture the complexity inherent in the system.
• Social impact evaluations must look at two different kinds of impact – direct and catalytic.
• Given the complexity, mixed methods are essential, for example: “observation, interviews, surveys,
review of materials, focus groups,…analysis of student achievement data”, and case studies (ibid:
323).
• As there are not enough controls within the model of leadership development to be able to ac-
curately assign causal attribution, it is necessary instead to establish a solid correlation, and work
backward to build a case for causality. (ibid: 323).
• It is necessary to be clear about the questions that are being asked and to focus on a core question
to anchor the evaluation.
• Assessment of leadership effectiveness, and of the effectiveness of leadership development pro-
grammes, must take into account the leaders’ context. Where the attendees of a LDP are from
diverse, geographic, sectoral, or demographic backgrounds, the criteria will differ, thus greatly com-
plicating the assessment process (London, Smither & Diamante, 2007).
• A significant limiting factor with regard to evaluations is the cost, in terms of money, people and time.
Social-impact evaluations especially generally take longer, are more complex, and less commonly
used. As such they require greater investment and expertise. Many LDPs have cited a dearth of
financial and other resources as a major reason for a lack of rigorous evaluations. When considering
this point, donors and funders of LDPs may wish to build the cost of effective evaluation processes
into the expectations of funding and partnership.

Given the challenges set out above it may not be surprising, therefore, that the number of evaluations
available was small, nor that the majority of evaluations that we found looked at individual impact alone
(see below). Given, however, that many of the LDPs reviewed here claim some kind of impact on
societal development, or at least aim to make a difference to the wider society or to developmental
outcomes, these findings are problematic.

The programmes should at the least make an effort to validate its theory of change through impact
assessment. Where this theory of change concerns change at the individual level then an individual-
level impact assessment will suffice. However, where a programme claims, and aims, to have an impact
on social change, then evaluation should attempt to capture its impact at this level. The example of
Ashoka’s successful self-initiated social impact evaluation model, all details of which are publicly available,
(see below) shows that it can be done in a cost-effective manner that makes a real difference to a
programme and in fact provides value for money.
 34

ii. The Findings61

Evaluation at the individual or organizational level

The majority of programmes evaluate only at the individual or organizational level. Most provide only
anecdotal evidence of participant satisfaction, used as evidence of effectiveness of programmes.

Examples of individualistic evaluations:

• The Population Leadership Program (PLP) is a reproductive health initiative run by the University
of Washington designed to train health professionals in the developing world, to better effect change
and improve results in the field of family planning (FP), reproductive health (RH), and population
management. PLP have produced a number of evaluations which concluded that their training pro-
grammes have had a positive impact upon the individuals:

“In terms of individual impact, Fellows reported a variety of changes within themselves, both
personally and professionally. In general, they are more comfortable dealing with others
who have different perspectives, they are more confident speaking in public, and they have
improved their technical skills” (Burnett & Fletschner, 2006: 4).

This kind of evaluation does not address PLPs wider aims in terms of impact on broader FP and RH
policies, nor the broader social impacts that the programme may or may not have had.

• The International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC) and Vision Quest Africa’s ‘Lead-
ership and Management Dynamics’ programme in Malawi was evaluated by INTRAC. They con-
cluded that: Although “…we [INTRAC] would not claim unmitigated success, participant reaction
at the end of the second module was so favourable that it had clearly made a massive difference to
the lives of those who completed the course” (James, 2005: 2).

This is an example of an individual impact evaluation that only addresses participant satisfaction, measured
though participant feedback surveys.

• The Africa Leadership Initiative does not provide full evaluations, but instead publishes overview
reports of each programme. These are mainly descriptive and, similar to the INTRAC report above,
look at impact in terms of participant feedback on the individual elements of the programme. For
example, the report on the South African programme stated that many participants found the dis-
cussion of the good society helpful, quoting participants who said:

“My vision of a good society developed during the course of the seminar. I see it as one in
which every human being lives in dignity, with their basic needs met, people understand their
interdependence with the natural world, and where they enjoy an equal opportunity to move
towards a more prosperous future” (Africa Leadership Initiative, 2005: 21).

• LEAD undertakes reviews and evaluations, both in the form of participant feedback and over-
views of individual programmes. However, they tend to concentrate largely on individual impact.The
participant feedback questionnaires used ask fellows to rate each part of the session in terms of
quality, and how the individual feels they have progressed (LEAD International, 2008a; Destrez and
Harrison, 2011). The programme overviews analyse more thoroughly the participant feedback, but
are based upon the same individual impact assessment and evaluation. For example, for the Mexico
61 Evaluation material was not available for all LDPs reviewed here for the following reasons: Some have not undertaken any evalu-
ations; some were unwilling to provide evaluations, stating that they were confidential documents (Abshire Inamori Leadership
Academy, Women’s Learning Partnership, AWID); some LDPs did not respond within the time parameters of this review; for a large
number of LDPs the only kind of performance or impact report that had been undertaken did not constitute a formal evaluation.
 35

Program in 2008:

“…key knowledge and skill sessions were evaluated during the week immediately using
standard questions and a scale of 1-6.Then at the end of the International Session, participants
were asked to complete a 6 page questionnaire that included quantitative and qualitative
questions and more creative reflective exercises” (LEAD International, 2008b: 5).

These evaluations reflect a highly individual view of leadership - if one is evaluating the success of a
leadership development programme based on feedback from the individual participants then it seems
that one must equate leadership with individual leadership. However, some of these organizations, for
example LEAD and Vision Quest, claim to view leadership as a collective process that is about social
change.

This seems to indicate that there is a methodological disconnection between the aims, methods and
evaluation practices of these LDPs.

Examples of organizational evaluations:

• The Center for Creative Leadership’s Leadership Development Program published a “story of
impact” (Center for Creative Leadership, n.d.), which describes its REFLECTIONS® impact assess-
ment tool. This involves personal survey-based 360º assessment processes. The feedback provides
information on how the individual’s behaviour has been affected, and how this has affected the
organization as a whole.
• Technoserve: As an organization that specializes in leadership development for private enterprise,
Technoserve tracks and evaluates its impact using business metrics, including wages paid and sup-
plies bought from the rural poor. Technoserve also states that it tracks and evaluates the social im-
pact of its work, but does not go into further detail about how this is done. Technoserve does not
make any of the evaluations undertaken available to the public.
• AVINA sets out its performance measurement system, which it began to fully implement in 2007,
based upon the Balanced Scorecard method (BSC) that “allows it to bring together a series of key
indicators in a succinct and relevant format that serves to inform managers and teams about how
the organization is doing in relation to its quarterly and annual goals”62

It sets out a measure of six indicators: operational platform, shared strategy formulation, support,
services, direct results, and impact. From a brief review, this appears to be a reliable and well formulated
performance measurement strategy, but the results, and the key indicators within each of these six main
areas, are not publicly available.

Evaluations at the societal level:

Only a few provided or made available evaluations that attempted to look at wider social and societal
impact or long-term impact. These include:

• The Chevening Scholarship Programme run by the British Council on behalf of the UK Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was evaluated by River Path Associates against the FCO’s aims.

“The 2004 review concluded that Chevening Scholarships made an insufficient impact against
government objectives and that far-reaching reform was needed.The Primary focus had been
on expanding scholarship numbers, rather than on the quality of the programme as a whole”
(River Path Associates, 2006: 6).
62 http://www.avina.net/web/siteavina.nsf/0/51F8A58AE05853400325745C00648E9D?opendocument&sistema=1&plantilla=2&Idioma
=eng&cate=%C2%BFQui%C3%A9nes%20somos%20y%20qu%C3%A9%20hacemos?&
 36

In response to the recommendations of this report the FCO introduced Chevening fellowships for
mid-career professionals. These are tied to specific objectives within the FCO strategy. It also spent time
clarifying the scholarships programme to ensure it contributed to FCO objectives before looking at
expansion of numbers.

• The Institute for Sustainable Communities sets out its “tangible results” in terms of climate and
environment, community building, civil society and advocacy and leadership. They cite examples of
the concrete, tangible results their work has had upon the communities they work with, for example:

“We help nonprofits form coalitions and networks to achieve more with fewer resources.
In Serbia, a coalition of nonprofits developed the first national policy on youth, who, facing
high unemployment and disillusionment, need more support to strong leaders in the future
[sic.]. In Macedonia, a coalition applied for and won the country’s first grant from the Global
AIDS Fund to stop HIV from becoming an epidemic at home. And in Ukraine, a network of
nonprofits developed a new system for homeless people to register for social services from
the government without a home address. Also in Ukraine, more than 100 nonprofits have
signed a Code of Ethics that takes an important and strong stand against corruption and for
transparency.”63

However, they do not have any publicly available evaluations that rigorously analyse the organiza-
tion’s own role in these outcomes.

Most evaluations take place while a programme is still going on, or before the full long-term impact is
able to be understood. This is mainly due to the organizational imperative to report results on a regular
short-term basis.

• Ashoka is a rare exception in that it measures its impact 5 and 10 years after initial contact with the
fellows it supports. They have made a real investment in evaluation:

“Every year, Ashoka conducts a Measuring Effectiveness study focusing on the class of Fellows
elected five or ten years prior. The study includes a comprehensive self-response survey
sent to all Ashoka Fellows elected in a given year, complemented by a series of in-person
interviews with a cross-section of survey respondents.”64

The results they present represent six years of these surveys and measure impact over 5 and 10
years in terms of five indicators: the original vision, which measures how many fellows are still work-
ing towards their original vision; independent replication, which measures how many have managed
to inspire replication of their work; policy influence, which measures how many fellows have man-
aged to effect changes in government policy as a result of the adoption of their ideas; leadership
building, which measures how many fellows have developed organizations, systems or institutions
that are leaders in their fields; and Ashoka leverage, which measures how fellows believe Ashoka’s
support has contributed to their success.These indicators are true measures of leadership as a route
to institutional change and development, and the result they have produced are extremely positive:
• 94% of fellows working towards the original vision after 5 years, 83% after 10
• 93 % of fellows work independently replicated after 5 years, 82% after 10
• 56% managed to contribute to national level policy change after 5 years, 71% after 10
• 54 % of fellows are leaders in their field after 5 years, 66% after 10

63 http://www.iscvt.org/what_we_do/civil_society/
64 http://www.ashoka.org/impact/effectiveness
 37

• 77% of fellows felt that the overall support given by Ashoka was critical or significant to their
success after 5 years, and 56% after 10.
This shows an example of a transferable framework to measure societal as well as individual impact,
taking into account that some parts of the leadership development process may take a longer time to
impact than others. For example, the number of fellows who have managed to contribute to national-
level policy change was much greater after 10 years than after 5 years.

Impact assessment and evaluation are a real issue of concern in the field of leadership development.
Rigorous evaluation is the only way to assess the impact, effectiveness and value for money of LDPs.
Where LDPs intend to have an impact on society, social change or development outcomes, careful
evaluation becomes even more important. However, as indicated above, this is rare and is not taken
seriously by the large majority of LDPs at present. What impact assessment there might be is mainly
restricted to participant satisfaction surveys that provide largely anecdotal evidence of the impact of
the programme on individuals. There are, of course, some programmes that are doing more. They
look at long-term changes in impact, try to measure effects beyond the sphere of the individual and
gather evidence of their effectiveness in terms of social change and developmental outcomes. There is
therefore a strong case for donors and policy-makers to support and encourage those who currently
do take evaluation seriously, and to require others to start the process as a condition of support.
 38

3.0
Our Opinion

By applying the criteria set out in the paper above, this section illustrates the Developmental Leader-
ship Program’s approach to leadership development and LDPs. The intention here is not to persuade
or attempt to change minds in favour of our particular view (although we do think that it provides an
important new perspective on leadership and development), but to illustrate how, by beginning with a
set of aims and a view of leadership, the above criteria can be used to make a judgement about which
kinds of LDPs may be most appropriate.

This section, therefore, starts by briefly setting out the Developmental Leadership Program’s view of
development and of leadership. Next we discuss the criteria (from above) that we think are particularly
important, followed by an overview of what we think are the key things programmes should provide
or do.

3.1 The Developmental Leadership Program’s view of leadership

The Developmental Leadership Program’s key point of departure is that development is not just a
technical or economic process but also one that is inherently political; that development requires lead-
erships, coalitions, and, crucially, collective action. In this process ‘leaders’ are important but, we argue
(Leftwich, 2009), ‘leadership’ is even more important. Leadership is a fundamentally political process,
about power and bargaining, influence and change. It is about ‘working politically’ to create networks
and coalitions of leaderships and elites that can overcome collective action problems and bring about
sustained developmental change – locally, sectorally, in specific issue areas (education, climate change,
gender, rights) or nationally. Political processes are not about individuals or technical skills but about
opportunities, contexts, common values, pressing issues and needs.

Of particular interest to the Developmental Leadership Program is leadership that works towards
developmental aims – leadership for development (or developmental leadership). This is defined as:

“[A] political process that takes different forms in different contexts. It involves the
capacity to mobilise people (including, but not only, followers) and resources and to
forge coalitions with other leaders and organizations, within and across the public and
private sectors, to promote appropriate local institutional arrangements that enhance
sustainable economic growth, political stability and social inclusion.”65

Developmental leadership perhaps cannot be ‘taught’, but the key point at which a difference can

65 http://www.dlprog.org/contents/about-us/our-core-focus/key-concepts.php#developmentalleadership
 39

be made from the outside is in the facilitation and brokering of networks and coalitions, necessary
for collective action, and out of which leaderships emerge. It is in this process that LDPs may have a
significant and important role to play.

3.2 Important criteria

The above view of leadership implies (directly in some cases, indirectly in others) that certain of the
criteria set out in the paper above are of particular importance.

Conception of leadership

Given that, as is evident above, the Developmental Leadership Program has a strong view of what lead-
ership is, an articluated conception or understanding of leadership from a LDP is clearly very important.
There is no ambiguity in our conception of leadership and would expect the same from a LDP.

With regard to the main theoretical divergences in this area:

• An individual attribute or a collective process? The Developmental Leadership Program quite
clearly views leadership as a collective process rather than as an individual attribute. We are inter-
ested in leadership development and not in leader development, which may be of value to the indi-
vidual, or even to a individual’s managerial effectiveness within an organization, but is unlikely to have
an effect upon developmental outcomes, which are governed by the political process of leadership.
• A normative or non-prescriptive conception? Inasmuch as ideas of equality, social inclusiveness and
sustainable growth are inherent in the concept of ‘developmental leadership’ then the Developmen-
tal Leadership Program has a normative view of leadership. That is not to say, however, that we have
a prescriptive or specific idea of the peculiarities of what developmental leadership can or should
look like. Instead we are interested in how, and in what forms inclusive (as opposed to predatory)
processes of leadership can and do create collective action that leads to positive developmental
outcomes.
• Teaching or facilitating leadership? The Developmental Leadership Program is clear that we do not
think that leadership (as a process) can be taught, but that it can potentially be facilitated, fostered
or brokered through the right methods.
• Transactional or transformational leadership? The Developmental Leadership Program sees trans-
formational and transactional leadership as two leadership processes that may be valid in different
contexts. Leadership in the context of development may involve both processes, and transactional
leadership should not be ignored nor should it be vilified. Instead it is a useful tool in the repetoire
of the developmental leader, where transformational leadership may not always be possible in situ-
ations of widely differing and competing interests.

Theory of change
A clear, research-based and methodologically sound theory of change is vital in an organization that
is attempting to bring about change. With regard to LDPs, where the change sought is in something
as intangible as ‘leadership’, a theory of change seems even more important. This should be based on
up-to-date academic research, and should be linked to programme design and to impact assessment
and evaluation. Where programmes do not have a rigorous and validated theory of change or meth-
odology there is no concrete way by which to assess or critique the aims, claims and processes used by
LDPs, and evaluation is extremely difficult (Howard, 2007: 17).
 40

The human and financial resources required to create, and keep up-to-date, a rigorous and validated
methodology or theory of change may certainly seem burdensome to some LDPs, but this should
nonetheless be a central part of any programme. LDPs that do not base their programmes on a theory
of change are, in effect, putting flour and water into a bowl and expecting to make bread. They have
neglected the yeast that kicks-off the chemical processes, and the heat that binds the ingredients. There
must be transformative ingredients in the leadership development process and if the LDPs do not know
what these are, the chances are they are not there.

Who are they aimed at?

Given the fairly wide remit of the Developmental Leadership Program (we are interested in develop-
mental leadership at all levels of society and in all sectors within the developing world) we do not have
a particular audience in mind. Different audiences may be appropriate for different things. However, we
do believe that in most cases it is important that the audience is not entirely generic, and that selection
occurs on at least one level. For example, if participants are selected based on a particular issue area,
then both international and local-level programmes may be appropriate to create different types of
coalitions of interest acting at either the international, national or local level to address that particular
issue. However, where the aim is to foster cross-sectoral and cross-issue understanding then this is most
usefully done at a national or local level where the relations and understandings that are built within the
program will also have applicability and validity outside of the programme. In this way it is important
that LDPs do not attempt to ‘do everything’ with large multi-country, multi-sector programmes. These
kinds of ‘catch-all’ programmes may end up being too abstract to achieve change on a scale that provides
true value-for-money.They risk either achieving nothing of significance, or not knowing exactly what they
have achieved. In order to guarantee a predictable and sustainable level of impact, programmes need
to be tailored to the needs of their participants and, with too broad a group, this tends to be difficult.

Methods and content of the programme

Given that we are interested in the political processes of leadership that can contribute to socially inclusive
and sustainable growth and development, we are interested in methods and practices that reflect this
understanding of leadership and develop these processes. As such, traditional classroom-based teaching
methods and competency-based training that concentrate on individual skills and training are not suffi-
cient. The processes of leadership66 that can truly be said to contribute to communities, society and
socially inclusive development usually require coalitions of action that can drive institutional reform, and
overcome collective action problems. These kinds of processes require both human and social capital
(Bolden, 2005: 11-12) in order to facilitate developmental coalitions.

As such an individual’s skills and competencies are not unimportant, but a balance must be created
between developing an individual’s capacity and personal leadership, and the necessity of “accomplishing
leadership in an interdependent and diverse world” where the structures of power and authority
require both independent and interdependent leadership practices (O’Connor & Day, 2007: 70-71).
An individual’s ability to participate effectively in leadership as a shared, collective process for broader
societal development requires the development of an identity that recognises the limits of individu-
alism. LDPs that aim to have an impact on societal development, therefore, should ensure that their
programme includes elements that will facilitate this (Bolden, 2005).

These kinds of processes are rarely created through traditional classroom-based practices and, as such,
the Developmental Leadership Program would suggest an emphasis on:
66 In terms of the process of bargaining, cooperation, negotiation and accommodation within and between different interests in order
to negotiate shared and agreed rules of the game.
 41

• The importance of working and thinking politically, encouraging appropaches that develop and fos-
ter a deeper analytical approach understanding of the political processes that shape development
outcomes in a given context
• Case studies where, how and with what effect such work has been done
• Experiential learning methodologies (or action learning where possible and appropriate), including
sufficient space and time for the feedback process of observation and reflection, planning and action
• Coordinated networks that facilitate skills and knowledge sharing and collective action
• Group projects and processes
• Exploration of a model of leadership that incorporates the complexities of societal challenges that
exist outside of the borders of carefully regulated hierarchical organizations
• Practical projects that address the specific needs of, and issues relevant to the participants.

The Developmental Leadership Program hypothesises that higher education plays an important role
in the development, facilitation and fomentation of developmental leaderships, elites and coalitions. As
such, educational scholarships, accompanying leadership development, are an area of particular interest
to the Developmental Leadership Program. At present their value for development has not been fully
explored beyond measurement of the impact that levels of higher education have on national economic
performance, but the Developmental Leadership Program is interested in, and is beginning to undertake
research into, the role that higher education has played (and can play) in cases of development success67.

This research has raised some interest in the importance of having a variety of methods and practices
in LDPs. However, of the utmost importance is that whatever methods are used, they are chosen for
their methodological value, are based on a theory of change, and are appropriate to the aims of the
programme.

Evaluation practices

Given the Developmental Leadership Program’s concern with LDP’s (potential or real) impact on devel-
opment outcomes, appropriate assessment would need to be based around social-impact evaluations
that can measure impact in the personal, organizational and societal spheres.

According to the Developmental Leadership Program’s conception of leadership, the process of leader-
ship development is necessarily a long-term one, involving reflection, testing of ideas, the formation
of networks and coalitions, and an ongoing learning process. As such, impacts may not be felt in full
until many years after the first involvement with a programme. Evaluations, therefore, should (where
possible) measure both short- and long-term impact.

Conclusion

A well-conceived and well-run LDP should, at least, provide:

• A clear definition of what the programme means by “leadership”, and how it believes that this kind
of leadership will contribute to which development outcomes
• A sound theory of change that lays out explicitly how the programme (its format and practices) will
change the behaviour, roles, and influence of the participants in such a way as to impact upon the
pursued development outcomes
• Methods and content that are appropriate to the aims and the understanding of leadership, and
consistent with the theory of change of the programme
• Rigorous evaluations or impact assessments that validate a programme’s theory of change; allow for
67 For more information on the research being undertaken by the Developmental Leadership Program on this area please visit our
website at http://www.dlprog.org/
 42

the identification of short-term and long-term impact; and enables the programmes to make neces-
sary adjustments when output, outcomes or impact fall short of expectations.
 43

4.0
Conclusions and Policy
Messages

Conclusions
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the role of leaders and leadership in the
process of development. Along with this, there has been a proliferation of a variety of ‘leadership training’
programmes and courses.This paper has shown that if donor and recipient organisations are to support,
fund or even design these programmes, there are a number of areas where greater clarity and more
discrimination is needed. In particular, policy-makers need to pay more attention to the purpose, goals,
form, content, methods and developmental effects of such programmes and hence whether and to what
extent the programmes meet their needs and requirements.

We have suggested that, with important and encouraging exceptions, many leadership programmes fail
to have a clearly articulated understanding of ‘leadership’, and few have a theory of change that could
underpin and guide the methods and content of their courses. A strong tendency to base programmes
on ‘western’ organisational leadership training models and methods is common, as is the failure to
emphasise the inescapably ‘political’ nature of leadership in all, but especially developmental, contexts. By
focusing largely on the alleged individual ‘properties’ of ‘good’ leaders, such programmes often overlook
the importance of leadership as a process, involving the fostering and use of networks and the formation
of coalitions as a means of overcoming the many collective action problems that define the challenges
of development. There is also a need to apply imaginative evaluation practices that could help to trace
causal links between such courses and developmental outcomes.

In the light of these general findings, we set out below a series of policy messages that any organization
or government interested in strengthening leadership for development might wish to consider, whether
it supports, funds or designs leadership programmes.
 44

Policy messages
• Articulate your own understanding of ‘leadership’ and its role for development first. Before sup-
porting, funding or creating any programme, donor and recipient organisations need to articulate
themselves first what they mean by leadership, why they want to support it and to what end.

• Be critical and discriminating when supporting or commissioning programmes. Organizations

need to be aware that there exist many approaches and definitions to leadership, that many pro-
grammes do not articulate their approaches and definitions clearly, that most programmes are
oriented towards “Western” organisational leadership training, and that most do not sufficiently
evaluate their effectiveness. To analyse or design a programme, donors and recipients should ask the
following five questions:
• What is the definition of leadership used by the programme?
• What is the theory of change of the programme?
• Who should this programme be aimed at?
• What should be the methods, contents and practices, consistent with the theory of change?
• How effective is the programme and how is this measured?

• Choose programmes that understand that leadership for development is more than leadership
for organizational development. Leadership programmes oriented to development should have an
understanding of the ‘political’ nature of leadership and of leadership as a process rather than an in-
dividual’s skills. Programmes should include training or facilitating participants in the use of networks,
the formation of coalitions, and how to think and work politically in a positive sense.

• Choose programmes that are appropriate for the context and sector. Considering the impor-
tance of facilitating the use of networks and the formation of coalitions, it is likely that context and
sector specific programmes will be more appropriate than generic ones.

• Make sure you have the right programme for the right participants. As described in the review,
there is an enormous range of programmes and approaches to choose from. Make sure you select
the right participants, or the right programme for the people you have in mind.

• More can and should be done to evaluate the effectiveness of leadership programmes. Most pro-
grammes currently only measure the satisfaction of the participants at the end of the course. While
measuring the long term developmental impact of leadership programmes is difficult and expensive,
programmes could at least follow-up with participants after a period of time to track changes in
their leadership behaviour and perceived results.
 45

REFERENCES
Africa Leadership Forum (2008) Annual Report 2008. Africa Leadership Forum.

Africa Leadership Initiative (2005) The Africa Leadership Initiative/South Africa Kilimanjaro Class Executive
Seminar Report. Africa Leadership Initiative.

African Leadership Council (2004) Leadership in Africa: The Mombassa Declaration. Mombassa: http://
www.worldpeacefoundation.org/africanleadership.html accessed April 2010.

Ammann Howard, Kim & Reinelt, Claire (2007) “Evaluating Leadership Development for Social Change”
in Hannum, Martineau & Reinelt (eds.) The Handbook of Leadership Development Evaluation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, J. E. (2005) “Reflections on Leadership,” In VIVA, Liderazgo, Lideranca, Leadership:Testimonios person-

ates. p. 71. VIVA, ENERO.

Avolio, Bruce J. (2005) Leadership Development in Balance, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Badaracco, J. L. & Ellsworth, R. R. (1993) Leadership and the Quest for Integrity. Cambridge MA: Harvard
business Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990) Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3rd Edition ed.).
New York: The Free Press.

Batliwala, Srilatha (2008) “Feminist Leadership for Social Transformation: Clearing the Conceptual
Cloud”, CREA.

Bolden, R. (2005) “What is Leadership Development: Purpose and Practice”. Leadership South West
Research Report. Exeter: University of Exeter: Centre for Leadership Studies.

Booth, David (2009) “Elites, governance and the public interest in Africa: Working with the grain?”
Africa Power and Politics Discussion Paper No. 6, August, http://www.institutions-africa.org/publications/
discussion-papers accessed October 2010.

Bottelberge, Paul (2010) “Leadership Development in Tanzania, Kenya and beyond” NPA Tanzania.

Bowden, A. O. (1926) “A study of the personality of student leaders in the United States,” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 149-160.

Brady, D. & Spence, M. (Eds.) (2010) Leadership and Growth. Washington D. C.:The World Bank, on behalf
of the Commission on Growth and Development.

Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2006) “Ethical Leadership: A review and future directions,” Leadership
Quarterly, 17:6, pp. 595-616.

Bryman, A. (1993) “Charismatic leadership in business organizations: some neglected issues,” Leadership
Quarterly , 4:3-4, pp. 289-304.
 46

Burnett, S., & Fletschner, F. (2006) Population Leadership Program, University of Washington: 2006 Impact
Evaluation. PLP - received from Aaron Katz, director of PLP.

Bush,T., & Glover, D. (2004) Leadership Development: Evidence & Beliefs. Retrieved from National College
for School Leadership: www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7A/88/bush-school-leadership-full.pdf accessed October
2010

Campbell, D., Dargis, G., & Campbell, K. (2003) “Enhancing incremental influence: a focused approach to
leadership development,” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10 (1), pp. 29-44.

Campbell, Nancy (n.d.) “The Leadership Development Process” Power Point Presentation, Global
Health Leadership Program, Washington University. http://population-leaders.washington.edu/internal/
LeadershipDevelopmentProcess.pdf accessed April 2010.

Chabal, Patrick & Daloz, Jean-Pascal (1999) Africa Works: Disorder as a Political Instrument. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.

Center for creative leadership (n.d.) “Story of Impact: Leadership Development Program: REFLEC-
TIONS®: Reflecting New Leadership Competencies for the Long Term,” http://www.ccl.org/leadership/
pdf/aboutCCL/LDPReflections.pdf accessed April 2010.

Cole, W. & Parks, T. (2010) “Political Settlements: Implications for International Development Policy and
Practice,” Asia Foundation Occasional Paper No.2, http://asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/745 accessed
December 2010.

Conger, Jay A. & Riggio, Ronald E. (2007) “Introduction” in Conger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E. (eds.) The Practice of
Leadership: Developing the next Generation of Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 1-7.

Cooley, C. H. (1902) Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners.

Day, D. (2001) “Leadership Development: a review in context,” Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), pp. 581-613.

Dewey, John (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.

Drayton, W. (2005) “The essence of leadership is helping,” In VIVA, Liderazgo, Lideranca, Leadership: Testi-
monios personates. pp. 16-17. VIVA, ENERO.

East-West Centre (2009) “Asia Pacific Leadership Program Generation Nine (G9): ‘Navigating Change’”
Program Guide 2009-2010. http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/education/aplp_pdfs/
Program_Guide_G9.pdf accessed April 2010.

East-West Center (2008) “Asia Pacific Leadership Program Generation Eight: Program Guide: Navigating
Change,” Hawaii: East-West Centre.

Entman, Max (2009, September) Interview with Abshire Inamori Leadership Initiative. (H. Lyne de Ver,
Interviewer).

Escandon, S. D., & Kamungi, P. M. (2008) Women of Africa Leadership Development Program: 2. Research
Report: Kenya. www.sfcg.org/programmes/lwi/.../WomenOfAfrica_Kenya.pdf accessed June 2010.
 47

Evans, Peter (2004) “Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the poten-
tials of deliberation,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 38 (4), pp. 30-52.

Fielder, F. E. (1964) “A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness,” in Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology volume 1. London: Academic Press.

Fielder, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (no date) An Introduction to Chevening Fellowships. Westminster: HM
Government.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2006) Review of Chevening Program. Westminster: HM Government.

Gilligan, Carol (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Cambridge. MA:
Harvard University Press.

Grebe, Eduard & Woermann, Minka (forthcoming) “Institutions of integrity and the integrity of institu-
tions: integrity and ethics in the politics of developmental leadership.”

Gosling, Jonathan & Mintzberg, Paul (2004) “The education of practicing managers,” MIT Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 45:4, pp. 19-22.

Hendy, Dianne (2006) “Pacific Leadership Development Programme: A Desk Study”, Pacific Programme
for Strengthening Governance, NZAID.

Hannum, Kelly M.; Martineau, Jennifer W. & Reinelt, Claire (eds.) (2007) The Handbook of Leadership
Development Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hernez-Broome, Gina & Hughes, Richard L. (2004) “Leadership Development: Past, Present, and Future,”
Human Resource Planning, 27:1, pp. 24-32.

House, Robert J.; Hanges, Paul J.; Javidan, Mansoor; Dorfman, Peter W.; & Guptur, Vipin (2004) Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howard, Ann (2007) “Best Practices in Leadership Selection,” in Conger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E. (eds.) The
Practice of Leadership: Developing the next Generation of Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 11-40.

James, R. (2005) Praxis Note No. 17 “Vision Quest: Learning about Leadership Development in Malawi”.
INTRAC www.intrac.org accessed October 2010.

Jinnett, Kimberly & Kern, Todd (2007) “Evaluating Leadership as a Strategy to Transform Complex
Systems,” in Hannum, Martineau & Reinelt (eds.) The Handbook of Leadership Development Evaluation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kanugo, J. A., & Conger, R. N. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.

Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974) “Toward a contingency theory of
 48

leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature”, Organizational Behaviour and
Human Performance, 12:1, pp. 62-82.

Kolb, David A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, David A.; Boyatzis, Richard E.; & Mainemelis, Charalampos (1999) “Experiential Learning Theory:
Previous Research and New Directions,” Department of Organizational Behaviour, Weatherhead School
of Management, Case Western Reserve University.

Laws, E. (2010) “The ‘Revolutionary Settlement’ in 17th Century England: Deploying a Political Settle-
ments Analysis,” Background Paper No. 09, The Developmental Leadership Program. www.dlprog.org

LEAD-International-Secretariat (2009, August 27) Interview with LEAD International. (H. Lyne de Ver,
Interviewer).

LEAD International. (2007) “Eight Dimensions of Leadership: Self-Appraisal Exercise,” LEAD International
Training Session Indonesia: 28.11.07 Day 3. pp. 1-2. http://www.lead.org accessed October 2010.

LEAD International. (2008a) International Report Participant Feedback Brussels 2008. London: LEAD
International.

LEAD International. (2008b) LEAD International Session Magacities and Climate Change: Sustainable cities
in a changing world: Mexico City, 16-22 November 2008: Summary evaluation report. London: LEAD Inter-
national.

Leftwich, Adrian & Hogg, Steve (2007) “Leaders, Elites and Coalitions: The case for leadership and the
primacy of politics in building effective state, institutions and governance for economic growth and social
development,” Background Paper 01, The Developmental Leadership Program, www.dlprog.org

Leftwich, Adrian (2009) “Bringing agency back in: Politics and human agency in building institutions and
states. A synthesis and overview report of phase one of the Leadership Program,” Research Paper 06,
The Developmental Leadership Program, www.dlprog.org

Leftwich, Adrian (2010) “Beyond Institutions: Rethinking the Role of Leaders, Elites and Coalitions in the
Institutional Formation of Developmental States and Strategies,” Forum for Development Studies, 37:1, pp.
93-111.

Leiderman, Sally (2007) “From the Inside Out: Evaluating Personal Transformation Leadership Efforts,” in
Hannum, Martineau & Reinelt (eds.) The Handbook of Leadership Development Evaluation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

London, Manuel; Smither, James W. & Diamante, Thomas (2007) “Best Practices in Leadership Assess-
ment,” in Conger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E. (eds.) The Practice of Leadership: Developing the next Generation of
Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 41-63.

Lyne de Ver, H. (2008) Leadership Politics and Development: A Literature Survey. Background Paper 03,
The Developmental Leadership Program, www.dlprog.org
 49

Martineau, J. W. & Hannum, K. M. (2003) Evaluating the Impact of Leadership Development: A Professional
Guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for creative leadership.

McCall, Morgan W Jr. & Hollenbeck, George P. (2007) “Getting Leader Development Right,” in Conger, J.
A. & Riggio, R. E. (eds.) The Practice of Leadership: Developing the next Generation of Leaders. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 87–106.

Mendonca, Manuel & Kanungo, Rabindra N. (2007) Ethical Leadership. Maidenhead, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.

Milliband, D. (2008) Written Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons, 13th March 2008. Parlia-
mentary Debates. Commons, 5th Series, vol. 473, col. 23WS.

O’Connor, Patricia M. G. & Day, David D. (2007) “Shifting the Emphasis of Leadership Development:
From ‘Me’ to ‘All of Us’”, in Conger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E. (eds.) The Practice of Leadership: Developing the next
Generation of Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 64-86.

Ogiogio, G. (2005) “Measuring Performance of Interventions in Capacity Building: Some Fundamentals”,

African Capacity Building Foundation Occasional Paper No. 4.

Oxfam International (n.d.a) “Oxfam International Youth Partnership Strategic Plan 2010-13,” [Internal]
Carlton, VIC: Oxfam Australia.

Oxfam International (n.d.b) “OIYP 10 Year Impact Assessment Project: Terms of Reference,” [Internal]
Carlton, VIC: Oxfam Australia.

Oxfam International (n.d.c) “Oxfam International Youth Partnerships: Concept Note,” [Internal] Carlton,
VIC: Oxfam Australia.

Piaget, Jean (1970) The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. New York: Grossman.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1931) The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Melbourne: Macmillan & Co.

Reinalt, C., Foster, P., & Sullivan, S. (2003) Evaluating outcomes and impacts: A scan of 55 Leadership
Development Program. Development Guild/DDI Inc www.leadershiplearning.org accessed April 2010.

Rice, P. (2005) “Lasting social change and sustainable development come from collective action,” In VIVA,
Liderazgo, Lederanca, Leadership: Testimonios personates. pp. 37-41. VIVA, ENERO.

River Path Associates (2006) Review of Chevening Scholarship & Fellowships. London: Her Majesty’s
Government (Crown Copyright).

Rosener, Judy B. (1990) “Ways Women Lead,” Harvard Business Review, 68:6, pp. 119-25.

Russon, C., & Reinelt, C. (2004) “The results of an evaluation scan of 55 leadership development
programs,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Winter).

Sharma, M., Gueye, M., Reid, S., & Fall Sarr, C. (2005) Leadership for Results: Leadership Development
Programme Implementation Guide: The Answer Lies Within. United Nations Development Programme
 50

http://www.undp.org/hiv/docs/prog_guides/ldp_implementation_guide.pdf accessed December 2010.

Stogdill, Ralph M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: Personal Factors Associated with Leadership. New York:
Free Press.

UNDP. (2006) Leadership for Human Development: A UNDP Capacity Development Resource. Capacity
Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy.

Waddock, Sandra (2007) “Leadership Integrity in a Fractured Knowledge World,” Academy of Manage-
ment Learning and Education, 8:4, pp. 543 – 557.

Williams, Ken (2009) A future of Leadership Development. Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational
Development. http://cld.aed.org/PDF/LeadershipEssay.pdf accessed April 2010.

Winn, Bryony (2010) “Training Leadership-for-Development: Interrogating the Agenda of One South
African Approach,” MPhil Thesis, Department of International Development, University of Oxford.

Wolpe, H., & McDonald, S. (2008) “Democracy and Peace-Building: Re-thinking the Conventional
Wisdom,” The Round Table, 97 (394), pp. 137-145.

Women’s Learning Partnership (n/d) WLP’s Leadership for Change PowerPoint Presentation. www.learn-
ingpartnership.org accessed September 2010.

Yukl, G. (2008) Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Websites used

Africa Leadership Institute Website http://www.alinstitute.org/default.aspx

Academy for Educational Development http://www.alinstitute.org/default.aspx

Americans for Indian Opportunity http://www.aio.org/

African Leadership Academy http://www.africanleadershipacademy.org/

African Leadership Forum http://www.africaleadership.org/info.htm

Africa Leadership Initiative http://www.africaleadership.net/

African Leadership and Progress Network http://www.africanprogress.net/

Association for Women’s Rights in Development http://www.awid.org/

Ashoka http://www.ashoka.org/

Aspen Institute http://www.aspeninstitute.org/

AVINA http://www.avina.net/web/siteavina.nsf/page?openform&Sistema=1&idioma=eng
 51

CaDeCo http://www.cadeco.mw/

Center for creative leadership http://www.ccl.org/leadership/index.aspx

Central Asian Leadership Academy http://www.celaprogram.org/

Centre for Leadership and Public Values http://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/clpv/; http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/

clpv/

Centre for Public Leadership, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Centre for Strategic and International Studies – Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy

http://csis.org/program/abshire-inamori-leadership-academy

Civil Service College Singapore http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/page.asp?id=1

East-West Centre http://www.eastwestcenter.org/

Egyptian Institute of Directors http://www.eiod.org/

Ghana Institute for Public Management http://www.gimpa.edu.gh/

Global Health Leadership Program

http://population-leaders.washington.edu/fellows/globalHealthLeadershipProgram.shtml

Human Capital Institute http://www.hci.org/about; http://www.hci.org/selamta/home

Idasa, An African Democracy Institute http://www.idasa.org.za/

International NGO Training and Research Centre http://www.intrac.org/

Institute for Sustainable Communities http://www.iscvt.org/

Institute for Women’s Leadership

http://www.womensleadership.com/women_leaders_changing_the_world.php

Indigenous Youth Leadership Program

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Indigenous/Schooling/Programs/Pages/IYLP1.aspx;
http://www.fya.org.au/what-we-do/indigenous/iylp/

International Research and Exchanges Board, Young Women’s Leadership Program in Yemen
http://www.irex.org/programs/ywlp/index.asp

International Women’s Development Agency http://www.iwda.org.au/au/

International Women’s Forum http://www.iwforum.org/

LEAD http://www.lead.org/
 52

Leaders’ Quest Foundation http://www.leadersquest.org/

Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP) http://www.leap.org/

LEAP Africa http://www.leapafrica.org/

Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/home.aspx

Mandela Rhodes Foundation http://www.mandelarhodes.org/

Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy Foundation

http://oprahwinfreyleadershipacademy.o-philanthropy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=owla_homepage

Oxfam International Youth Partnerships http://oiyp.oxfam.org/oiyp/index.html

Pacific Leadership Programme http://www.plp.org.fj/default.aspx

Population Leadership Program http://population-leaders.washington.edu/

Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.home

Rapid Results Initiative http://www.rapidresults.org/

Search for Common Ground – Leadership Wisdom Initiative

http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/lwi/programmes_lwi.html

Synergos http://www.synergos.org/

Technoserve http://www.technoserve.org/

UNISA Online – Thabo Mbeki Leadership Institute

http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=23684

The Leadership Trust http://www.leadership.org.uk/

United Nations University International Leadership Institute (UNU-ILI) http://www.hakhosting.com/

University of Exeter, Centre for Leadership Studies http://www.leadership-studies.com/about/intro.htm

Vision Quest Africa http://www.visionquestafrica.com/

Vital Voices http://vitalvoices.org/

Women’s Institute for Leadership Development for Human Rights

http://wildforhumanrights.org (website since disbanded).

Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and Peace http://www.learningpartnership.org/

 53

Women’s World Banking http://www.swwb.org/

World Peace Foundation – African Leadership Council

http://www.worldpeacefoundation.org/africanleadership.html

Young Women’s Leadership Program in Yemen

http://www.irex.org/project/young-womens-leadership-program-ywlp-yemen
 54

Appendix A: List of LDPs reviewed

1. Archbiship Tutu Leadership Fellowship
2. The African Capacity Building Foundation
3. The Academy for Educational Development
4. Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy Fellowship
5. Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre
6. Americans for Indian Opportunity
7. African Leadership
8. African Leadership Academy
9. African Leadership Council
10. The Africa Leadership Forum
11. Africa Leadership Initiative
12. Africa Leadership and Progress Network
13. Asia Pacific Leadership Program (East-West Centre)
14. Ashoka
15. The Aspen Institute’s Henry Crown Fellowship
16. AVINA
17. Association for Women’s Rights in Development
18. CaDeCo
19. Centre for Creative Leadership
20. Central Eurasia Leadership Academy
21. Chevening Scholarships and Fellowships
22. Centre for Leadership and Public Values
23. Club de Madrid Shared Societies Initiative
24. Civil Service College Singapore Leaders in Governance Programme
25. Dare to Lead
26. Egyptian Institute of Directors
27. FaHCSIA’s Indigenous Leadership Program
28. Ghana Institute for Management and Public Administration, Graduate School of Governance,
Leadership and Public Management
29. Giving Works
30. Global Health Leadership Program
31. Human Capital Institute
32. The Initiative for Leadership and Democracy in Africa
33. Indigenous Leadership Network Victoria
34. Indigenous Leadership Program & Fellowship Vic Health
35. InterAction
36. Institute for Sustainable Communities
37. International Women’s Development Agency
38. International Women’s Forum Leadership Foundation
39. Institute for Women’s Leadership – Women Leaders Changing the World
40. Indigenous Youth Leadership Program
41. LEAD
42. Leaders Quest Foundation
43. Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics
44. LEAP Africa
45. Lee Kwan Yew School for Public Policy
 55

46. Latino Leadership Initiative

47. Leadership Wisdom Initiative
48. Mandela Rhodes Foundation Scholarships and Fellowships
49. Nigeria Leadership Initiative
50. Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls
51. Oxfam International Youth Partnerships
52. Pass Australia
53. Population Leadership Program
54. Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity
55. RMIT
56. Rapid Results Initiative
57. The Smarter Stronger Leadership Program
58. Synergos
59. Technoserve
60. The Leadership Trust
61. The Unity Foundation
62. UNU-ILI
63. Vision Quest
64. Vital Voices
65. WILD Human Rights
66. Women’s World Banking Women’s Leadership Development Program
67. Young Women’s Leadership Program in Yemen
 56

Appendix B: Theories of Change

• The Asia Pacific Leadership Program (APLP) presents a theory of change that is about achieving
“changed perspectives”68 but does not makes a theoretical connection between this and the pro-
cesses of effecting change.

Figure 1

Source: APLP website69

The APLP also present a theory of learning leadership as competencies – based on skills, knowledge,
and values & attitudes.

Figure 2

Source: East West Centre (2008:3)

• The Association for Women’s Rights In Development’s (AWID) Young Feminist Activism Program:
Presents the Feminist Leadership Diamond as its theory of change, but does not provide an ac-
companying explanation.

68 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/education/aplp/aplp-experience/
69 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/education/aplp/aplp-experience/
 57

Figure 3

POLITICS POWER
& PURPOSE

PRINCIPLES &
VALUES PRACTICES

Source: Batliwala (2008)

• International Women’s Development Agency provides a representation of its theory of change

in the form of the below diagram, (figure 6). However, the only explanation that accompanies this
diagram is:
“We recognise that positive and sustainable change requires the active inclusion and participa-
tion of women. Working in partnership with local women who live and work in the communi-
ties allows responses that are direct and appropriate to issues affecting their lives”70

The rest of the detail of the diagram is unexplained. For example, the role of regional and interna-
tional advocacy is not mentioned at all within IWDA’s website’s ‘How we work’ section.

Figure 4

Source: IWDA website71

• Ashoka’s Youth Venture Programme traces its impact as follows:

The program creates impact by transforming:
• “The youth participant, through the enabling experience of starting a social venture
• “The youth team, as they learn important life skills and realize that they can create change
• “The community, as growing numbers of Youth Venture teams ‘tip’ the local culture towards
70 http://www.iwda.org.au/au/about/how-we-work/
71 Ibid.
 58

greater youth leadership

• “society at large, by fundamentally redefining the role of young people as leaders of social
change”

• Oxfam International Youth Partnerships talk about five domains of change:

1. “Personal Empowerment
2. “Expanding Network
3. “Capacity to engage with (challenge/influence) power structures
4. “Developing enabling environment for active citizenship
5. “Changes towards more just communities, policies and practices” (Oxfam International, n.d.b: 2).

• The Unity Foundation provides us with its “Community Leaders Pathway” (figure 7) but the pro-
cesses and methodologies that link the different steps of the ‘pathway’ are not explained.

Figure 5

Source: Unity Foundation website72

72 http://www.unityfoundation.org.au/
 59

• UNDP LDP – Leadership for Results:

Figure 6

Source: UNDP (2006: 7)

A: -CCE reaches finite numbers directly

-Media can reach millions
-Stories of community decisions and actions reflected in all media inspire change nationwide

B: -LDP reaches finite numbers directly

-Media can reach millions
-Media leaders participate in LDP
-Stories of LDP regional projects and leaders reflected in all media inspire change nationwide

C: -CCE National Expert Team participate in LDP to enhance each initiative

D – F: -Integrate community conversations and voices in national and subnational strategic plans
-National and subnational planners participate in LDP
-Media reflect societal concerns that are integrated into national and subnational plans (Ibid.).
 60

• Vital Voices:

Figure 7

Source: Vital Voices website73

• Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity:

This project provides a large amount of material about its methodology, including a presentation de-
scribing how its approach differs from conventional wisdom74, to an article which sets out the “Four
Key Imperatives of Sustainable Peace and Democracy” (Wolpe & McDonald, 2008: 140) which form
the backbone of the Project’s methodology. These are:
• Transform the war-induced zero-sum paradigm
• Restore trust and rebuild fractured relationships
• Build a new consensus on the rule of the game
• Strengthen communication and negotiation skills. (Ibid.).
These imperative are achieved, so the methodology sets out, by relying far less:
73 http://www.vitalvoices.org/how-we-do-it
74 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=359205
 61

“on traditional didactic training techniques of readings and lectures than on experiential
learning methods...all designed to enable the participants to acquire insight, through their own
experience of reacting to a series of hypothetical situations, into the attitudes and perceptions
that condition their behaviour and that of the ‘others’” (Ibid.: 141).
This is done as part of a long-term process not a one-off training session.

• Leaders Quest Foundation (LQF): LQF centres for leadership achieve impact on three levels:
1. Individual change: emerging grassroots leaders (‘fellows’) are identified and supported in
developing necessary skills, knowledge and expertise to address critical issues;
2. Organisational change: Fellows establish new community associations and organisations, or
integrate new skills, networks and capacity into existing institutions;
3. Community change: Fellows are supported through ongoing training, peer networks and
mentorship to implement projects that address ‘live’ community issues”75

75 http://www.leadersquestfoundation.org
 62

Appendix C: Matrix of Leadership Development Programmes

ABP Tutu

CaDeCo
Ashoka

AVINA

AWID
ALPN
ACBF

CELA
APLP
AILC
AILA

CCL
ALA
AIO

ALF

ALI
AL
Societal X
Evaluations

Organizational X X
Individual X
Has evaluation X X X X
Networks X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Entrepreneurship X X X
PTLD X X X X X
Modes of practice

Experiential Learning X X X X X X X X X
Action Learning
Educational Scholarship X X
Competency X X X X X X X X X X X
Traditional X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Gender-specific X
Ethnicity-specific X X
Issue-specific X X X
Who are they aimed at?

Sector-specific X X
International X X X X X
Local X X X X
Regional X X X X X X X X X
High level X X X X X X
Grassroots/low level X X X X
Established leaders X X X X X X X X
New Leaders X X X X X X X X
Theory of
Change

Has Theory of Change X X X

Transactional Leader-
ship
Conception of leadership

Facilitating X X X X X X X
Teaching X X X X X
Positive X X
Normative X X X X X X X
Group X X X X
Individual X X X X X X X
Has clearly defined X X X X X
 63

Global Health Lead-

Indigenous L’ship Pr
ships & Fellowships
Chevening Scholar-

& F (Vic Health)

HCI Foundation
Club de Madrid

ership Program
CSC Singapore

Indigenous LP
Giving Works
Dare to Lead

InterAction
(FaHCSIA)
GIMPA

IWDA
iLEDA
EIOD
CLPV

ILNV

ISC
Societal X X X
Evaluations

Organizational X
Individual
Has evaluation X X X X X
Networks X X X X X X X X X X X X
Entrepreneurship X X
PTLD X X X X
Modes of practice

Experiential Learning X X X X X X
Action Learning X X X
Educational Scholarship X X
Competency X X X X X X X
Traditional X X X X X X X X X X X X
Gender-specific X
Ethnicity-specific X X X
Issue-specific X X X X X X X X
Who are they aimed at?

Sector-specific X X X X X X
International X X X X X X X
Local X X X X X X X X X
Regional X
High level X X X X
Grassroots/low level X X X X X X
Established leaders X X X X X X X X X X
New Leaders X X X X X
Theory of
Change

Has Theory of Change X

Transactional Leadership X
Conception of leadership

Facilitating X X X X X X X
Teaching X X X X
Positive X
Normative X X X X
Group X X X X X
Individual X X X X
Has clearly defined X
 64

Oprah Winfrey L’ship

Leadership Founda-

Project on L’ship
Mandela Rhodes

& Building State

Leader’s Quest

Lee Kwan Yew

Pass Australia
LEAP Africa

Schol & Fell

Foundation

tion (IWF)

RMIT ILP
Acadmey

Capacity
LEAD

OIYP
LEAP
IYLP

LWI

NLI

PLP
LLI
Societal X
Evaluations

Organizational
Individual X X X
Has evaluation X X X X
Networks X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Entrepreneurship X
PTLD X X X X X X
Modes of practice

Experiential Learning X X X X X X X X X X X
Action Learning X X X
Educational Scholarship X X
Competency X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Traditional X X X X X X X X X
Gender-specific X X
Ethnicity-specific X X X X X
Issue-specific X X X X X X X
Who are they aimed at?

Sector-specific X
International X X X X
Local X X X X X X X X X X X
Regional X X X
High level X X X
Grassroots/low level X X X X X
Established leaders X X X
New Leaders X X X X X X X X X X
Theory of
Change

Has Theory of Change X X X

Transactional Leadership X X
Conception of leadership

Facilitating X X X X X X X X X X X
Teaching X X X X X
Positive X
Normative X X X X X X X X X X
Group X X X X X X X X X
Individual X X X X X X X X
Has clearly defined X X X
 65

The Leadership Trust

Vision Quest Africa

Leaership Program
The Unity Founda-
Smarter Stronger

Young Women’s
Women’s LDP
UNDP - LDP
Technoserve

Vital Voices

WILD HR
Synergos

(WWB)

Yemen
WLP
tion
RRI

Societal
Evaluations

Organizational X
Individual X
Has evaluation X X
Networks X X X X X X X X
Entrepreneurship X X X
PTLD X X X X X X
Modes of practice

Experiential Learning X X X X X X X
Action Learning X X X X X
Educational Scholarship
Competency X X X X X X X X X
Traditional X X X X X
Gender-specific X X X X
Ethnicity-specific X
Issue-specific X X X X X X
Who are they aimed at?

Sector-specific X X X X
International X X
Local X X X X X X X X X X
Regional X
High level X X X X
Grassroots/low level X X X X X X X
Established leaders X X X X
New Leaders X X X X X
Theory of
Change

Has Theory of Change X X X

Transactional Leadership X
Conception of leadership

Facilitating X X X X X X X X X
Teaching X X
Positive
Normative X X X X X X X
Group X X X X X X X X X
Individual X X X X X
Has clearly defined
DLP Publications

Research Papers

1. Jo-Ansie van Wyk (2009) “Cadres, Capitalists and Coalitions: The ANC, Business and Development
in South Africa”.
2. David Sebudubudu with Patrick Molutsi (2009) “Leaders, Elites and Coalitions in the Development
of Botswana”.
3. Eduard Grebe with Nicoli Nattrass (2009) “Leaders, Networks and Coalitions in the AIDS Response:
A Comparison of Uganda and South Africa”.
4. Deborah Brautigam with Tania Diolle (2009) “Coalitions, Capitalists and Credibility: Overcoming the
Crisis of Confidence at Independence in Mauritius”.
5. Jo Beall with Mduduzi Ngonyama (2009) “Indigenous Institutions, Traditional Leaders and Develop-
mental Coalitions: The Case of Greater Durban, South Africa”.
6. Adrian Leftwich (2009) “Bringing Agency Back In: Politics and Human Agency in Building Institutions
and States”.
7. Junji Banno & Kenichi Ohno (2010) “The Flexible Structure of politics in Meiji Japan”.
8. Marine Destrez & Nick Harrison (2011) “Leadership Training and Network Formation: The evolution
of the LEAD process”.
9. Michael Bratton & Eldred Musunungure (2011) “The Anatomy of Political Predation: Leaders, Elites
and Coalitions in Zimbabwe, 1980-2010”.
10. Laura Brannelly, Laura Lewis & Susy Ndaruhutse (2011) “Higher Education and the Formation of
Developmental Elites: A literature review and preliminary data analysis”.

Background Papers
1. Adrian Leftwich & Steve Hogg (2007) “Leaders, Elites and Coalitions: The case for leadership and
the primacy of politics in building effective states, institutions and governance for sustainable growth
and social development”.
2. Adrian Leftwich & Steve Hogg (2008) “The Politics of Institutional Indigenization: leaders, elites
and coalitions in building appropriate and legitimate institutions for sustainable growth and social
development”.
3. Heather Lyne de Ver (2008) “Leadership Politics and Development: A Literature Survey”.
4. Heather Lyne de Ver (2009) “Conceptions of Leadership”.
5. Adrian Leftwich & Steve Hogg (2010) “The Leadership Program: Overview & Objectives”.
6. Adrian Leftwich (2010) “An Overview of the Research in Progress for the Leadership Program:
Developmental Leaders, Elites and Coalitions”.
7. Isabelle van Notten (2010) “Integrity, Leadership, Women’s Coalitions and the Politics of Institutional
Reform. Bringing Agency Back In. Mid-Term Workshop Report, Cape Town 25-26 May 2010”.
8. Edward Laws (2010) “The ‘Revolutionary Settlement’ in 17th Century England: Deploying a Political
Settlements Analysis”.
 DLP
Policy and Practice for Developmental
Leaders, Elites and Coalitions
DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP)

addresses an important gap in international
thinking and policy about the critical role played
by leaders, elites and coalitions in the politics
of development. This growing program brings
together government, academic and civil society
partners from around the world to explore
the role of human agency in the processes
of development. DLP will address the policy,
strategic, and operational implications about
‘thinking and working politically’ - for example,
about how to help key players solve collective
action problems, negotiate effective institutions
and build stable states.

The Developmental Leadership Program

W: www.dlprog.org
E: info@dlprog.org

www.dlprog.org